Acknowledgements

This workbook was developed by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s Office on 

Smoking and Health (OSH) and Division of Nutrition, Physical Activity and Obesity (DNPAO) 

as part of a series of technical assistance workbooks for use by program managers, and 

evaluators. The workbooks are intended to offer guidance and facilitate capacity building on a 

wide range of evaluation topics. We encourage users to adapt the tools and resources in this 

workbook to meet their program’s evaluation needs.

This workbook applies the CDC Framework for Program Evaluation in Public Health (www.cdc.

gov/eval). The Framework lays out a six-step process for the decisions and activities involved 

in conducting an evaluation. While the Framework provides steps for program evaluation, the 

steps are not always linear and represent a more back-and-forth effort; some can be completed 

concurrently. In some cases, it makes more sense to skip a step and come back to it. The 

important thing is that the steps are considered within the specific context of your program.

A final evaluation report presents the findings, conclusions, and recommendations. It has been 

said that a report is never truly final, unless the program is ending, because evaluation is an 

ongoing process. In this workbook, “final” refers to the term that funders often use to denote 

the last report of a funding period or the final report of a specific evaluation activity.

The following individuals from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Office 

on Smoking and Health (OSH), and Division of Nutrition, Physical Activity, and Obesity 

(DNPAO), were primary contributors to the preparation of this publication:

S René Lavinghouze, MA, Evaluation Team Lead/OSH; Jan Jernigan, PhD, Senior Evaluation 

Scientist/DNPAO; Kim Snyder, MPH, Contractor, ICF International

The following also contributed to the preparation of this publication:

LCDR Adriane Niare, MPH CHES, Health Scientist/OSH; LaTisha Marshall, MPH, Health 

Scientist/OSH; Rosanne Farris, PhD, RD, Branch Chief/DNPAO

We also gratefully acknowledge the contributions ICF International provided in 

developing the graphics and copy editing.

For more information, contact: René Lavinghouze, Evaluation Team Lead in OSH at 

RLavinghouze@cdc.gov, or Jan Jernigan, Senior Evaluation Scientist in DNPAO at JJernigan1@

cdc.gov.

Suggested Citation: Developing an Effective Evaluation Report: Setting the Course for Effective 

Program Evaluation. Atlanta, Georgia: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National 

Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, Office on Smoking and Health; 

Division of Nutrition, Physical Activity and Obesity, 2013. 
Table of Contents i 

Table of Contents

Part I: Writing the Final Evaluation Report.........................................1

Who is the audience for this workbook? ...........................................................1

What is a final evaluation report? ......................................................................1

Why do you want a final evaluation report? .......................................................2

How do you write an evaluation report?.............................................................3

Evaluation Report Overview...............................................................................4

What are the key steps in developing and disseminating a final evaluation 

report using CDC’s Framework? ........................................................................7

The Process of Participatory Evaluation Reporting .............................................9

Step 1: Engage Stakeholders ........................................................................9

Define the Purpose of the Evaluation in the Report....................................9

Engage the Evaluation Stakeholder Workgroup (ESW) ...............................9

Step 2: Describe the Program ......................................................................12

Create a Shared Understanding of the Program......................................12

Provide a Narrative Description..............................................................12

Include a Logic Model...........................................................................13

Describe the Stage of Development .......................................................14

Step 3: Focus the Evaluation Design .............................................................17

Describe the Evaluation Questions.........................................................17

Process Evaluation Focus......................................................................18

Outcome Evaluation Focus....................................................................18

Discuss Feasibility Issues......................................................................19

Step 4: Gather Credible Evidence .................................................................20

Present Credible Evidence.....................................................................20

Describe Methods and Data Sources.....................................................21

Quantitative and Qualitative Methods.....................................................21

Use the Evaluation Plan Methods Grid....................................................22

Report Data With Clarity........................................................................24
ii Table of Contents

Report Clarity of Quantitative Data .........................................................24

Report Clarity of Qualitative Data ...........................................................25

Step 5: Justify Conclusions .........................................................................27

Use Tools for Reporting With Clarity........................................................29

Step 6: Ensure Use and Share Lessons Learned............................................30

Plan for Communication and Dissemination............................................31

Other Communication and Reporting Efforts...........................................34

Ensure Use of Information .....................................................................35

Use Tools for Clarity in Reporting ...........................................................36

Prepare an Executive Summary.............................................................36

Include References and Appendices.......................................................37

One Last Note ......................................................................................37

Pulling It All Together.......................................................................................39

References......................................................................................................42

Part II: Exercise, Worksheets, and Tools .........................................45

Step 1: 1.1 Stakeholder Inclusion and Communication Plan Exercise...............46

Step 1: 1.2 Stakeholder Information Needs Exercise........................................47

Step 3: 2.1 Checklist for Assessing Your Evaluation Questions .........................49

Step 5: 3.1 Stakeholder Interpretation Meeting Exercise..................................51

Step 6: 4.1 Communicating Results Exercise...................................................54

Outline: 5.1 Reporting Checklist Tool ...............................................................61

Tools and Templates: Checklist for Ensuring Effective Evaluation Reports*.......61

Outline: 5.2 Evaluation Report Outline Examples..............................................62

Logic Models: OSH and DNPAO Logic Model Examples ...................................65

Preventing Initiation of Tobacco Use Among Young People..............................65

Eliminating Nonsmokers’ Exposure to Secondhand Smoke.............................66

Promoting Quitting Among Adults and Young People......................................67

State NPAO Program—Detailed Logic Model (FOA 805 & TA Manual).............68
Table of Contents iii 

Resources*..........................................................................................69

Web Resources ...............................................................................................69

Making Your Ideas Stick: Reporting and Program Planning...............................71

Qualitative Methods.........................................................................................72

Quantitative Methods ......................................................................................72

Pulling It All Together.......................................................................................72

Evaluation Use ................................................................................................73

OSH Evaluation Resources ..............................................................................73

DNPAO Evaluation Resources ..........................................................................76
iv Figures and Acronyms

Figures

Figure 1: CDC Framework for Program Evaluation in Public Health ................7

Figure 2: Logic Model Example ...................................................................13

Figure 3A: Logic Model Category by Stage of Development Example .............15

Figure 3B: Logic Model Category by Stage of Development With 

Corresponding Evaluation Questions.............................................16

Figure 4A: Evaluation Plan Methods Grid Example 1 ......................................23

Figure 4B: Evaluation Plan Methods Grid Example 2 ......................................23

Figure 5: Communication Plan Table............................................................33

Figure 6: Examples of Upstream, Midstream, and Downstream 

Successes With a Media Campaign ..............................................34

Acronyms

CDC Centers for Disease Control and Prevention

CMI Component Model of Intfrastructure

DNPAO Division of Nutrition, Physical Activity, and Obesity

ESW Evaluation Stakeholder Workgroup

NIDRR National Institute on Disability and Rehabilitation Research

OSH Office on Smoking and Health

QA Quality Assurance
1

Part I: Writing the Final Evaluation Report

WHO IS THE AUDIENCE FOR THIS WORKBOOK? 

The purpose of this workbook is to help public health program managers, administrators, 

and evaluators develop a joint understanding of what constitutes a final evaluation 

report; why a final report is important; and how they can develop an effective report. This 

workbook is to be used along with other evaluation resources, such as those listed in the 

Resources section. Part I defines and describes how to write an effective final evaluation 

report. Part II includes exercises, worksheets, tools, and resources. The contents of Part II 

will facilitate the process for program staff members and evaluation stakeholder workgroup 

(ESW) members to think through the concepts presented in Part I. The workbook was 

written by staff members of the Office on Smoking and Health (OSH), the Division of 

Nutrition, Physical Activity and Obesity (DNPAO) at the Centers for Disease Control and 

Prevention (CDC), and ICF International. The content and steps for writing a final evaluation 

report can be applied to any public health program or initiative. 

WHAT IS A FINAL EVALUATION REPORT?

A final evaluation report is a written document that 

describes how you monitored and evaluated your 

program. It presents the findings, conclusions, and 

recommendations from a particular evaluation, including 

recommendations for how evaluation results can be 

used to guide program improvement and decision 

making. While evaluation is an ongoing process, the 

term “final,” as used in this workbook, refers to the last 

report of a funding period or the final report of a specific 

evaluation activity.

The final report should describe the “What,” the “How,”

and the “Why It Matters” questions about your program. 

 The “What” describes your program and how its purpose and activities are linked 

with the intended outcomes. 

 The “How” addresses the process for implementing your program and provides 

information about whether it is operating with fidelity to its design. The “How” (or 

A final evaluation report is a 

written document that describes 

how you monitored and evaluated 

your program. It allows you to 

describe the “What,” the “How,”

and the “Why it Matters” for 

your program and use evaluation 

results for program improvement 

and decision making.
2 Developing an Effective Evaluation Report

process evaluation), along with output and/or 

short-term outcome information, helps to clarify 

whether and why changes were made during 

implementation. 

The “Why It Matters” (sometimes referred to as 

the “So What” question) provides the rationale for 

your program and its impact on public health. The 

ability to demonstrate that your program has made 

a difference is crucial to program sustainability. 



The final evaluation report is one of many ways to present 

the results from an evaluation. It may be constructed 

differently from the approach presented here (additional 

options will be shared later in this workbook). However, 

engaging in the process of creating an evaluation report 

presented in this workbook will be helpful no matter how 

the information is presented.

WHY DO YOU WANT A FINAL 

EVALUATION REPORT?

A final evaluation report is needed to relay information 

from the evaluation to program staff, stakeholders, 

and funders to support program improvement and 

decision making. The final evaluation report is only one 

communication method for conveying evaluation results. It is useful, however, to have one 

transparent document with information about stakeholders, the program, the evaluation 

design, activities, results, and recommendations. Such information can be used to facilitate 

support for continued or enhanced program funding, create awareness of and demonstrate 

success (or lessons learned from program failures), and promote sustainability. Torres, 

Preskill, and Piontek, (2005, p. 13) contend that there are three reasons for communicating 

and reporting evaluation results:

1. Build awareness and/or support and provide the basis for asking questions

2. Facilitate growth and improvement

3. Demonstrate results and be accountable

The evaluation 

stakeholder workgroup 

(ESW) comprises 

members who have 

a stake, or vested 

interest, in the evaluation 

findings and can benefit 

most directly from 

the evaluation. These 

members represent 

the primary users of 

the evaluation results 

and generally act as 

a consultative group 

throughout the entire 

planning process, as 

well as throughout the 

implementation of the 

evaluation. Members 

often are instrumental 

in the dissemination of 

results. 
3

The process of developing a final evaluation report in cooperation with an ESW fosters 

collaboration and a sense of shared purpose. A written report fosters transparency and 

promotes use of the results. Use of evaluation results must be planned, directed, and 

intentional (Patton, 2008). Starting with the written evaluation plan and culminating with the 

final evaluation report and dissemination and use of the evaluation information. This cycle is 

a characteristic of Engaged Data, a core component of functioning program infrastructure, 

as portrayed in the Component Model of Infrastructure (CMI) (Lavinghouze & Snyder, in 

press). (For information on developing an evaluation plan, see Developing an Effective 

Evaluation Plan at http://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/publications/printed_material/index.htm.)

Several elements are needed to assure that your evaluation report fulfills the goals. These 

elements are to (1) collaboratively develop the report with a stakeholder workgroup; (2) 

write the report clearly and succinctly with its intended audience in mind; (3) interpret the 

data in a meaningful way; and (4) include recommendations for program improvement. 

HOW DO YOU WRITE AN EVALUATION REPORT?

This workbook is organized by the elements of the evaluation report within the context of 

CDC’s Framework for Program Evaluation in Public Health (CDC, 1999; http://www.cdc.

gov/eval/framework/index.htm). The following elements of an evaluation report will be 

discussed: 

 Intended use and users: A discussion about the intended use and users fosters 

transparency about the purpose(s) of the evaluation and identifies who will have 

access to evaluation results. It is important to build a market for evaluation results 

from the beginning with a solid evaluation plan and collaboration with the ESW 

(CDC, 2011). In the evaluation report, it is important to remind your audience what 

the stated intended use is and who the intended users are.

 Program description: A program description presents the theory of change driving 

the program. This section often includes a logic model and a description of the 

program’s stage of development, in addition to a narrative description.

 Evaluation focus: This element documents how the evaluation focus was narrowed 

and presents the rationale and the criteria for how the evaluation questions were 

prioritized. 

 Data sources and methods: Evaluation indicators, performance measures, data 

sources, and methods used in the evaluation are described in this section. A clear 
4 Developing an Effective Evaluation Report

description of how the evaluation was implemented will assure transparency and 

credibility of evaluation information.

Results, conclusions, and interpretation: This section provides clarity about how 

information was analyzed and describes the collaborative process used to interpret 

results. This section also provides meaningful interpretation of the data, which 

goes beyond mere presentation. Often, the interpretation section is missing in an 

evaluation report, thus breaking a valuable bridge between results and use.

Use, dissemination, and sharing: This section describes plans for use of 

evaluation results and dissemination of evaluation findings. Clear, specific plans 

for use of the evaluation should be discussed from the beginning, as this facilitates 

the direction of the evaluation and sharing of interim results (CDC, 2011). This 

section should include an overview of how findings are to be used, as well as more 

detailed information about the intended modes and methods for sharing results with 

stakeholders. In addition, this section should 

include plans to monitor dissemination efforts 

with a feedback loop for corrective action if 

needed. The dissemination plan is an important 

but often neglected section of the evaluation 

plan and evaluation report.

Every evaluation is implemented within a complex, 

dynamic environment of politics, budgets, timelines, competing priorities, and agendas. 

The communication and reporting of evaluation results are channeled through these same 

complexities. Collaboration with the ESW to develop a dissemination plan from the outset 

of the evaluation facilitates a more conducive environment for transmitting the evaluation 

results in a manner that promotes program improvement and decision making.

EVALUATION REPORT OVERVIEW

This section provides a brief overview of the information that you should consider when 

developing a final evaluation report within the context of the CDC Framework for Program

Evaluation in Public Health. Each section will be described in greater detail as you move 

through the steps in the framework.

A final evaluation report is one tool in your evaluation tool box for communicating and 

reporting evaluation results. As previously discussed, an evaluation report is a written 

document that describes how you monitored and evaluated your program and answers the 

“Effective communicating and 

rreporting facilitates lear eporting facilitates learning 

among stakeholders and other 

audiences”

(Torres et al., 2005 p. 2)
5

“What,” the “How,” and the “Why It Matters” questions. The ability to demonstrate that the 

program has made a difference can be crucial to its sustainability. 

The basic elements of a final evaluation report might include the following:

 Title page

 Executive summary

 Intended use and users

 Program description

 Evaluation focus

 Data sources and methods

 Results, conclusions, and interpretation 

 Use, dissemination, and sharing plan

 Tools for clarity

However, you should adapt your report to your specific evaluation needs and context. 

Title page: The title page presents the program name, dates covered, and possibly the 

basic focus of the evaluation in an easily identifiable format.

Executive summary: This brief summary of the evaluation includes a program description, 

evaluation questions, design description, and key findings and action steps.

Intended use and users: In this section, the primary intended users and the ESW are 

identified and the purposes and intended uses of the evaluation are described. This section 

fosters transparency about the purposes of the evaluation and who will have access to 

evaluation results and when. It is important to build a market for evaluation results from the 

beginning. 

Program description: This section will usually include a logic model, a description of 

the program’s stage of development, and a narrative description. This section leads to a 

shared understanding of the program, as well as the basis for the evaluation questions and 

how they are prioritized. 

Evaluation focus: This section focuses the evaluation by identifying and prioritizing 

evaluation questions on the basis of the logic model and program description, the 

program’s stage of development, program and stakeholder priorities, intended uses of the 

evaluation, and feasibility. 
6 Developing an Effective Evaluation Report

Data sources and methods: This section addresses indicators and performance 

measures, data sources and rationale for selection of methods, and credibility of data 

sources. Data need to be presented in a clear, concise manner to enhance readability and 

understanding.

Results, conclusions, and interpretation: This section describes the analysis processes 

and conclusions and presents meaningful interpretation of results. This is a step that 

deserves due diligence in the writing process. The propriety standard plays a role in guiding 

the evaluator’s decisions in how to analyze and interpret data to assure that all stakeholder 

values are respected in the process of drawing conclusions. The interpretation should 

include action steps or recommendations for next 

steps in either (or both) the program development and 

evaluation process.

Use, dissemination, and sharing plan: This is an 

important but often neglected section of the evaluation 

plan and the evaluation report. Plans for use of 

evaluation results, communication, and dissemination 

methods should be discussed from the beginning. The 

most effective plans include layering of communication 

and reporting efforts so that tailored and timely 

communication takes place throughout the evaluation.

Tools for clarity: Other tools that can facilitate clarity in your report include a table of 

contents; lists of tables, charts, and figures; references and possibly resources; and an 

acronym list. Appendices are useful for full-size program logic models, models developed 

through the evaluation, historical background and context information, and success stories.

The exercises, worksheets, and tools found in Part II of this workbook are designed to help 

you think through the concepts discussed in Part I. These are only examples; remember, 

your evaluation report will vary on the basis of your program, stakeholder priorities, and 

context.

The key steps in developing 

a final evaluation report are 

to describe the activities and 

results that constituted each 

step of evaluation. You should 

also discuss how the concepts of 

utility, accuracy, feasibility, and 

propriety were incorporated into 

each step.
7

WHAT ARE THE KEY STEPS IN DEVELOPING AND 

DISSEMINATING A FINAL EVALUATION REPORT USING 

CDC’S FRAMEWORK?

CDC’s Framework for Program Evaluation 

in Public Health (see Figure 1) is a guide 

that describes how to evaluate public 

health programs effectively and use the 

findings for program improvement and 

decision making. Just as the framework 

is a useful process for developing the 

evaluation plan, it can be a useful outline 

for the final evaluation report. Each 

step of the framework has important 

components that are useful in the creation 

of an overall evaluation plan, as described 

in Developing an Effective Evaluation 

Plan (CDC, 2011). In addition, while 

the framework is described in terms of 

steps, the actions are not always linear 

and are often completed in a cyclical, 

back-and-forth manner. As you develop 

and implement your evaluation plan, you 

may need to revisit a step during the 

process and complete other discrete steps 

concurrently. The activities you undertake 

to implement each step of the evaluation, 

as well as their underlying rationale, should 

be described in the evaluation plan and 

the final evaluation report. This will promote transparency and build connections among 

the evaluation plan, implementation of the evaluation, and the final evaluation report. As 

with planning and implementing the evaluation, the process you follow when writing the 

evaluation report may require nonlinear movement between the steps in the framework.

Figure 1: CDC Framework for Program 

Evaluation in Public Health
8 Developing an Effective Evaluation Report

In addition to the framework, the evaluation standards will enhance the quality of your 

evaluation by guarding against potential mistakes or errors in practice. The evaluation 

standards are grouped around four important attributes: (1) utility, (2) feasibility, (3) 

propriety, and (4) accuracy. Following are the definitions of these attributes (indicated by 

the inner circle in Figure 1): 

 Utility: Serve the information needs of intended users.

 Feasibility: Be realistic, prudent, diplomatic, and frugal.

 Propriety: Behave legally, ethically, and with due regard for the welfare of those 

involved and those affected.

 Accuracy: The evaluation is comprehensive and grounded in the data.

(Sandars & The Joint Commission on Standards for Educational Evaluation, 1994)

Your final evaluation report should address the application and practice of these standards 

throughout the evaluation. This will increase the transparency of evaluation efforts and 

promote the quality and credibility of implementation of the evaluation. It is important to 

remember that these standards apply to all steps and phases of the evaluation.
1 2 3 4 5 6

9

THE PROCESS OF PARTICIPATORY 

EVALUATION REPORTING

Step 1: Engage Stakeholders 

Define the Purpose of the Evaluation in the Report

The stated purposes of the evaluation serve as the foundation 

for evaluation planning, focus, design, and interpretation of 

results. The purposes should be clearly delineated in the 

evaluation report to remind the audience of the foundation 

and boundaries for the evaluation focus and design and help 

to establish their connection to intended use of evaluation 

information. While there are many reasons for conducting an 

evaluation, they generally fall into three primary categories: 

1. Rendering judgments (accountability)

2. Facilitating improvements (program development)

3. Knowledge generation (transferring research into 

practice or across programs)

(Patton, 2008)

Stakeholders are first engaged around the stated purpose of 

the evaluation, and they continue to be engaged throughout 

the evaluation and into the reporting stage.

Engage the Evaluation Stakeholder Workgroup (ESW)

Why should I engage stakeholders in writing the evaluation 

report?

A primary feature of the evaluation plan is to identify an ESW 

that includes members who have a stake, or vested interest, 

in the evaluation findings. More specifically, the ESW includes

those who are the intended users of the evaluation results and those who can benefit most 

directly from the evaluation (Patton, 2008; Knowlton & Philips, 2009), as well as others who 

have a direct or indirect interest in program implementation (CDC, 2011). The ESW plays a 

prominent role in the effective dissemination and use of the evaluation results. Continued 

For the ESW to be 

truly integrated into the 

evaluation processes, 

ideally it will be identified 

in the evaluation report. 

The form this takes may 

vary on the basis of 

program needs. If it is 

important politically, you 

might want to specifically

name each member of 

the workgroup, their 

affiliation, and specific 

role(s) on the workgroup. 

If a workgroup is 

designed with rotating 

membership by group, 

then you might just list 

the groups represented. 

Transparency about 

the role and purpose of 

the ESW can facilitate 

buy-in for evaluation 

results from those who 

did not participate 

in the evaluation—

especially in situations 

where the evaluation is 

implemented by internal 

staff members.
1 2 3 4 5 6

10 Developing an Effective Evaluation Report

engagement of the ESW during the report writing and dissemination phase can facilitate 

understanding and acceptance of the evaluation information. Stakeholders are much more 

likely to buy into and support the evaluation if they are involved in the evaluation process 

from the beginning. At the very least, they should be connected to stakeholders who 

were involved throughout the evaluation implementation and reporting process. The ESW 

can be a part of the evaluation by participating in an interpretation meeting, facilitating 

dissemination of success stories or interim reports, or participating in the distribution of 

surveys.

How are stakeholders’ roles described in the report?

Naming the ESW members in the evaluation report is one way to enhance transparency 

of stakeholders’ roles in the evaluation process. Identifying the ESW members in the 

evaluation report can facilitate—

 ownership of the evaluation results,

 buy-in for the evaluation information from audiences who did not have direct 

contact with the implementation of the evaluation,

 credibility and transparency of the evaluation, and

 greater dissemination and use of the evaluation results.

How stakeholders are identified may vary on the basis of program needs. If it is important 

politically, you might want to include each workgroup member’s name, affiliation, and 

specific role(s) on the workgroup. If a workgroup is designed with rotating membership, 

then you might just list the groups represented. For example, a workgroup may comprise 

members who represent funded programs (three members), nonfunded programs (one 

member), and partners (four members). Or, a workgroup may comprise members who 

represent state programs (two members), community programs (five members), and 

external evaluation experts (two members). Transparency about the role and purpose of the 

ESW can facilitate buy-in for evaluation results from those who did not participate in the 

evaluation, especially in situations where the evaluation was implemented by internal staff 

members. 
1 2 3 4 5 6

11

AT THIS POINT IN YOUR REPORT, YOU HAVE—

 defined the purposes of the evaluation, and

 described the evaluation stakeholder workgroup.
1 2 3 4 5 6

12 Developing an Effective Evaluation Report

Step 2: Describe the Program

Create a Shared Understanding of the Program

The next step in the Framework and the evaluation 

report is to describe the program. A program 

description clarifies the program’s purpose, stage of 

development, activities, capacity to improve health, and 

implementation context. A shared understanding of the 

program and what the evaluation can and cannot deliver 

is essential to successful dissemination and use of 

evaluation results. 

Provide a Narrative Description

Include a narrative description in the evaluation report to help assure that the audience will 

understand the program. You may also use a logic model to succinctly synthesize the main 

elements of a program. While a logic model is not always necessary, a program description 

is essential for understanding the focus of the evaluation and selection of methods. 

If results are presented without your audience having a grasp of what the program is 

designed to achieve or the goals of the evaluation, expectations may not be met and 

misunderstandings may delay or prevent the effective dissemination and use of evaluation 

results. The program description for the report may already be included in the written 

evaluation plan. If there is no evaluation plan, you will need to write a narrative description 

based on the program’s objectives and context. The following should be included, at a 

minimum:

 A statement of need to identify the health issue addressed

 Inputs or program resources available to implement activities (may include a 

program budget with corresponding narrative)

 Program activities linked to outcomes through theory or best practice program 

logic

 Stage of development to reflect program maturity

 Environmental context within which a program is implemented

A description of the program in its context increases the accuracy of the results that you 

will present later in the report.

A program description clarifies 

the program’s purpose, stage 

of development, activities, 

capacity to improve health, and 

implementation context. 
1 2 3 4 5 6

13

Include a Logic Model

The description section often includes a logic model to 

visually show the links between activities and intended 

outcomes. The logic model should identify available 

resources (inputs), what the program does (activities), 

and what you hope to achieve (outcomes). You might 

also want to articulate any challenges you face (the 

program’s context or environment). Figure 2 illustrates 

the basic components of a program logic model. As you 

move further to the right of the logic model, away from 

the activities, more time is needed to observe outcomes.

Logic models include the following elements:

Inputs: These are the resources that are necessary for program implementation.

Activities: These are the interventions or strategies that the program implements to 

achieve health outcomes.

Outputs: These are direct products obtained as a result of program activities.

Outcomes: Outcomes can be short term, intermediate, or long term. They are the 

changes, effects, or results of program implementation (activities and outputs).









It is beyond the scope of this 

workbook to describe how to 

fully develop a logic model. 

Resources related to developing 

a logic model are located in the 

Resources section in Part II. 

Example logic models developed 

by OSH and DNPAO are also found 

in Part II.

Figure 2: Logic Model Example
1 2 3 4 5 6

14 Developing an Effective Evaluation Report

Describe the Stage of Development

A description of the program’s stage of development also contributes to the full description 

and understanding of the program in an evaluation report. Programs move through 

planning, implementation, and maintenance developmental stages. For a policy, system, or 

environmental change initiative, the stages might look somewhat like the following example 

stages:

Planning:

1. The environment and assets have been assessed. 

2. The policy, system, or environmental change is in development.

3. The policy, system, or environmental change has not yet been approved.

Implementation:

4. The policy, system, or environmental change has been approved but not 

implemented.

5. The policy, system, or environmental change has been in effect for less than 1 year.

Maintenance:

6. The policy, system, or environmental change has been in effect for 1 year or longer.

It is important to consider an evolving evaluation model, because programs are dynamic 

and change over time. Progress is affected by many aspects of the political and economic 

contexts. When it comes to evaluation, the stages are not always a once-and-done 

sequence of events. 

The stage of development conceptual model complements the logic model. Figures 3A and 

3B show how general program evaluation questions are distinguished both by logic model 

categories and developmental stages. This places the evaluation within the appropriate 

stage of development (i.e., planning, implementation, and maintenance). The model offers 

suggested starting points for asking evaluation questions within the logic model while 

respecting the developmental stage of the program. This prepares the evaluation report 

readers to understand the focus and priorities of the evaluation. The ability to answer key 

evaluation questions will differ by stage of development; the report audience needs to be 

aware of what the evaluation can and cannot answer. The following are applicable to the 

policy change initiative example mentioned previously.
1 2 3 4 5 6

15

Planning stage questions might include:

 What is the public support for the policy?

 What are the potential barriers to the policy?

 What resources will be needed for implementation of the policy?

 What are the estimated health impacts based on modeling and/or other benchmark 

community or state evaluations?

Implementation stage questions might include:

 Are there major exemptions to the policy?

 Is there continued or increased public support for the policy?

 Is there adequate enforcement of the policy?

 Is there compliance with the policy?

Maintenance stage questions might include:

 Is there adequate enforcement of the policy?

 Is there continued compliance with the policy?

 What is the economic impact of the policy?

 What is the health impact of the policy?

For more on stage of development related to a specific example of smoke-free policy, 

please see the Evaluation Toolkit for Smoke-Free Policies at http://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/

basic_information/secondhand_smoke/evaluation_toolkit/index.htm

Figure 3A: Logic Model Category by Stage of Development Example 
1 2 3 4 5 6

16 Developing an Effective Evaluation Report

Figure 3B: Logic Model Category by Stage of Development With 

Corresponding Evaluation Questions 

Program Developmental Stage

Program Planning Program Implementation Program 

Maintenance

Example: 

Developmental 

Stage Related to 

Policy, System, 

and Environmental 

Change Strategies

Environment and asset 

assessment.

Policy development.

Policy has not yet been 

approved.

Policy has been approved 

but not implemented.

Policy has been in effect for

less than 1 year.

Policy has been in effect 

for 1 year or longer.

Example: 

Questions Based 

on Developmental 

Stage Related to 

Policy, System, 

and Environmental 

Change Strategies

Is there public support 

for the policy?

What resources 

will be needed for 

implementation of the 

policy?

Is there adequate 

enforcement of the policy?

Is there compliance with the 

policy?

Is there continued or 

increased public support for 

the policy?

Are there major exemptions 

to the policy?

What is the health impact 

of the policy?

If there are major 

exemptions or loopholes 

to the policy, are there 

any disparities created 

by these exemptions or 

loopholes?

AT THIS POINT IN YOUR REPORT, YOU HAVE—

 defined the purposes of the evaluation,

 described the evaluation stakeholder workgroup,

 described the program including context,

 created a shared understanding of the program, and

 described the stage of development of the program.
1 2 3 4 5 6

17

Step 3: Focus the Evaluation Design

The amount of information you can gather concerning your program is potentially limitless. 

Evaluations, however, are always limited by the number of questions that can be asked and 

answered realistically, the methods that can be employed, the feasibility of data collection, 

and the resources available. These issues are at the heart of Step 3 in the CDC Framework: 

Focus the Evaluation Design. The scope and depth of any program evaluation is dependent 

on program and stakeholder priorities, available resources including financial resources, 

staff and contractor skills and availability, and amount of time committed to the evaluation. 

Ideally, the program staff members and the ESW work together to determine the focus 

of the evaluation based on the considerations of stated purposes, priorities, stage of 

development, and feasibility. Therefore, the questions that guide the evaluation are 

those that are considered most important to program staff and stakeholders for program 

improvement and decision making. Even those questions that are considered most 

important, however, have to pass the feasibility test.

Describe the Evaluation Questions

A final evaluation report should include the questions that guided the evaluation, as well 

as the process through which certain questions were selected and others were not. 

Transparency is particularly important in this step. To enhance the evaluation’s utility and 

propriety, stakeholders and users of the evaluation need to understand the roles of the 

logic model and the stage of development in informing evaluation questions. The stage of 

development discussed in the previous chapter illuminates why questions were or were 

not chosen. If the program is in the planning stage, for example, it is unlikely that outcome 

questions will be asked or can be answered as part of the evaluation. However, most 

stakeholders and decision makers are keenly interested in outcome questions and will be 

looking for those answers in the evaluation report. To keep stakeholders engaged, it may 

be helpful to describe when questions related to downstream effects might be answered. 

This is possible if a multiyear evaluation plan was established (CDC, 2011).

The report should include discussion of both process and outcome results. Excluding 

process evaluation findings in favor of outcome evaluation findings often eliminates the 

understanding of the foundation that supports outcomes. Additional resources on process 

and outcome evaluation are identified in the Resources section of this workbook.
1 2 3 4 5 6

18 Developing an Effective Evaluation Report

Process Evaluation Focus

Process evaluation focuses on the first three boxes of the 

logic model.

Process evaluation enables you to describe and assess 

your program’s activities and link progress to outcomes. 

This is important because the link between outputs and 

outcomes (last three boxes) for your particular program 

remains an empirical question. 

(CDC, 2008, p. 3)

Outcome Evaluation Focus

Outcome evaluation, as the term implies, focuses on the 

last three outcome boxes of the logic model: Short-term, 

intermediate, and long-term outcomes.

Outcome evaluation allows researchers to document 

health and behavioral outcomes and identify linkages 

between an intervention and quantifiable effects. 

 (CDC, 2008, p. 3)

Transparency about the selection of evaluation questions is crucial to stakeholder 

acceptance of evaluation results, and possibly for continued support of the program. If it is 

thought that some questions were not asked and answered to hide information, then it is 

possible that unwarranted negative consequences could result. 

Process and Outcome 

Evaluation in Harmony 

in the Evaluation 

Report: A discussion 

of both process and 

outcome results should 

be included in the report. 

Excluding process 

evaluation findings 

in favor of outcome 

evaluation findings 

often eliminates the 

understanding of the 

foundation that supports 

outcomes. Additional 

resources on process 

and outcome evaluation 

are identified in the 

Resources section of this 

workbook.
1 2 3 4 5 6

19

Discuss Feasibility Issues

The feasibility standard addresses issues of how much money, time, and effort can be 

expended on the evaluation. Sometimes, even the highest-priority questions cannot be 

addressed because they are not feasible due to data collection constraints, lack of staff 

expertise, or economic conditions. Therefore, it is essential to have a discussion with the 

ESW early in the process about the feasibility of addressing evaluation questions. It is 

important to be transparent both in the evaluation plan and report about feasibility issues 

related to how and why evaluation questions were chosen.

Discussions of budget and resources (both financial and human) that can be allocated 

to the evaluation are likely to be included in the evaluation plan. Best Practices for 

Comprehensive Tobacco Control Programs—20071

 (CDC, 2007) recommends that at least 

10% of your total program resources be allocated to surveillance and evaluation. In the final 

evaluation report, you may want to include the evaluation budget and an accompanying 

narrative that explains how costs were allocated. Including evaluation budget information 

and the roles and responsibilities of staff and stakeholders in the final report reflects 

the decisions regarding feasibility. The process through which you created the budget 

narrative may also enhance utility by assuring that the evaluation priorities, as well as future 

evaluation questions and resource requirements, are clearly outlined.

1 This is an evidence-based guide to help states plan and establish effective tobacco control programs to 

prevent and reduce tobacco use.

AT THIS POINT IN YOUR REPORT, YOU HAVE—

 defined the purposes of the evaluation,

 described the evaluation stakeholder workgroup,

 described the program including context,

 created a shared understanding of the program,

 described the stage of development of the program, and

 discussed the focus of the evaluation through the lens of the logic 

model or program description and stage of development.
1 2 3 4 5 6

20 Developing an Effective Evaluation Report

Step 4: Gather Credible Evidence

Now that you have described the focus of the evaluation and identified the evaluation 

questions, it is necessary to describe the methods used in the evaluation and present 

the results. For evaluation results to be perceived as credible and reliable, content must 

be clear and transparent in the section of your report that describes methods used. It 

is important to note that the buy-in for methods begins in the planning stage with the 

formation of the ESW, follows throughout the implementation and interpretation phases, 

and continues throughout the report writing and communication phases—all with the aid of 

the ESW.

CREDIBILITY OF THE EVALUATOR 

The credibility of the evaluator(s) can have an impact on how results and conclusions 

are received by stakeholders and decision makers and, ultimately, on how the evaluation 

information is used. Patton (2002) included credibility of the evaluator as one of three 

elements that determine the credibility of data. This is especially true if the evaluation is 

completed in house. Consider taking the following actions to facilitate the acceptance of the 

evaluator(s) and thus the evaluation:

 Address credibility of the evaluator(s) with the ESW early in the evaluation process.

 Be clear and transparent in both the evaluation plan and the final evaluation report.

 Present periodic interim evaluation findings throughout the evaluation to facilitate 

ownership and buy-in of the evaluation and promote collaborative interpretation of 

final evaluation results.

 Provide information about the training, expertise, and potential sources of biases of 

the evaluator(s) in the data section or appendices of the final evaluation report.

Present Credible Evidence

The primary users of the evaluation should view the evidence you gathered to support the 

answers to your evaluation questions as credible. The determination of what is credible 

is often context dependent, and it can also vary across programs and stakeholders. The 

determination of credible evidence is tied to the evaluation design, implementation, and 

standards adhered to for data collection, analysis, and interpretation. When designing the 

evaluation, the philosophy should be that the methods that fit the evaluation questions 

are the most credible. Best practices for your program area and the evaluation standards 

of utility, feasibility, propriety, and accuracy included in the framework will facilitate 

the process of addressing credibility (CDC, 1999). It is important to fully describe the 
1 2 3 4 5 6

21

rationale for the data collection method(s) chosen in your evaluation report to increase the 

likelihood that results will be acceptable to stakeholders. It also strengthens the value of 

the evaluation and the likelihood that the information will be used for program improvement 

and decision making. 

Describe Methods and Data Sources

Methods and data sources used in the evaluation should be fully described in the 

evaluation report. Any approach has strengths and limitations; these should be described 

clearly in the report along with quality assurance (QA) methods used in the implementation 

of the evaluation. QA methods are procedures used to ensure that all evaluation activities 

are of the highest achievable quality (International Epidemiological Association, 2008). 

Explaining QA methods facilitates acceptance of evaluation results and demonstrates that 

you considered the reliability and validity of methods and instruments. Reliable evaluation 

instruments produce evaluation results that can be replicated; valid evaluation instruments 

measure what they are supposed to measure (International Epidemiological Association, 

2008). Your evaluation report should include a detailed explanation of anything done 

to improve the reliability and/or validity of your evaluation to increase transparency of 

evaluation results.

RELIABILITY AND VALIDITY

Indoor air quality monitoring has become a valuable tool for assessing levels of particulate 

matter before and after smoke-free policies are implemented. This documentation of 

air quality provides an objective measurement of secondhand smoke levels. Air quality 

monitoring devices must be calibrated before use to ensure that they are accurately 

measuring respirable suspended particles (RSPs), known as particulate matter. That is to 

say, the machine recordings must be reliable. Measurements should also be taken during 

peak business hours to reflect real-world conditions. That is to say, are the measurements 

valid?

Quantitative and Qualitative Methods

Quantitative and qualitative methods are both credible ways to answer evaluation 

questions. It is not that one method is right or wrong; rather, it is a question of which 

method or combination of methods will obtain valid answers to the evaluation questions 

and will best present data to promote clarity and use of information.
1 2 3 4 5 6

22 Developing an Effective Evaluation Report

Triangulation is the combining of methods and/or data 

to answer the same evaluation question (Patton, 2002). 

Triangulation is used to overcome the limitations of 

using just one method to answer an evaluation question. 

It can strengthen your evaluation because it provides 

multiple methods and sources from which results and 

conclusions may be drawn. Triangulation thus facilitates 

validation of interpretation through cross-verification 

from more than two data sources, often using both 

quantitative and qualitative methods and/or data. 

Triangulation may increase the amount of data you 

collect and the methods being used (Patton, 2002). If 

you used triangulation to answer evaluation questions, 

then this should be reflected in your final evaluation report. In addition, the possible 

challenges faced when using triangulation (such as multiple interpretations) should be 

addressed in the report, as well as the steps used to address those challenges.

Use the Evaluation Plan Methods Grid

It is important to connect the data collected to the evaluation question, the methods, 

and the anticipated uses. One particularly useful tool that can enhance the clarity of 

your evaluation report is an evaluation plan methods grid. This tool is helpful in aligning 

evaluation questions with methods, indicators, performance measures, and data sources 

and can facilitate a shared understanding of the overall evaluation among stakeholders. 

This tool can take many forms and should be adapted to fit your specific evaluation and 

context. Two different examples of this tool are presented in Figures 4A and 4B. 

It is beyond the scope of this workbook to describe how to choose indicators and data 

sources. Resources related to these are located in the Resources section in Part II. 

Those specific to tobacco indicators include:

 Key Outcome Indicators for Evaluating Comprehensive Tobacco Control 

Programs

 Surveillance and Evaluation Data Resources for Comprehensive Tobacco Control 

Programs

Quantitative data are data that 

are numerical and express 

quantities; for example, the 

number of meeting attendees. 

Qualitative data are nonnumeric 

data; for example, a description 

of a process that led to policy 

implementation.

(International Epidemiological 

Association, 2008)
1 2 3 4 5 6

23

Figure 4A: Evaluation Plan Methods Grid Example 1

Evaluation 

Question

Indicator or 

Performance 

Measure

Methods Data Source Frequency Responsibility

What process leads 

to implementation 

of policy or system 

change?

Description of 

process steps, 

actions, and 

strategies

Case study, 

interviews, 

and document 

reviews 

Site visits, 

reports, and 

interviews

Pre- and 

postfunding 

period

Contractor TBD

How many policies 

were approved or 

system changes 

achieved?

Number of 

policies approved 

or system 

changes achieved 

by the end of the 

project period

Analysis of 

policy or 

system change 

data collected

Policy or 

system 

change 

tracking 

database

Pre- and 

postfunding 

period

Health 

department staff 

member

Figure 4B: Evaluation Plan Methods Grid Example 2

Evaluation Question Indicator or 

Performance Measure

Potential Data Source 

(Existing or New) Comments

What media promotion 

activities are being 

implemented?

Description of 

promotional activities and 

their reach to targeted 

populations; dose and 

intensity

Focus group feedback; 

total rating points (TRP) 

and gross rating points 

(GRP); enrollment data

Is the public service 

announcement being 

used by newspapers? 

Number of newspapers 

that print public service 

announcement

Media tracking database
1 2 3 4 5 6

24 Developing an Effective Evaluation Report

Report Data With Clarity

According to Heath and Heath (2007), ideas that stick are understandable, memorable, 

and effective in changing thought or behavior. For evaluation results to stick with and be 

used by stakeholders and decision makers, the data must be presented in simple, clear 

terms. The core message must not be muddied by distractions in the report, and the 

results must be concrete. The evaluation results must be humanized and delivered in terms 

that are credible and actionable. The actionable aspect will be discussed in the section on 

interpretation.

Report Clarity of Quantitative Data

Tables and graphs are a great way to condense quantitative information and make a report 

more readable (Torres et al., 2005); however, they should be used correctly to convey the 

meaning of the evaluation results. According to Stephen Few (2004, p. 46) in Show Me the 

Numbers: Designing Tables and Graphs to Enlighten, it is best to use tables when—

 you will be looking at individual values,

 you will be comparing individual values,

 precise values are required, and 

 the quantitative information to be communicated involves many units of 

measurement.

It is best to use graphs when—

 the message is contained in the shape of the values, and 

 you will reveal relationships among multiple values.

In addition, Torres et al. (2005, p. 59) identified several features of effective tables:

 Assign each table an Arabic number if you are using several tables.

 Present tables sequentially within the text.

 Always place the title immediately above the table.

 Make each quantitative table self-explanatory by providing titles, keys, labels, and 

footnotes so that readers can accurately understand and interpret them without 

reference to the text.

 When a table must be divided so it can be continued on another page, repeat the 

row and column headings and give the table number at the top and bottom of each 

new page.
1 2 3 4 5 6

25

Distractions in the data presentation should be eliminated. These distractions come in 

many forms, but some that often are missed are included right in the tables, charts, and 

graphs—the use of too many words when icon headings will do, or excessive graph lines or 

line colors that do not print distinctly in black and white (Few, 2004).

Report Clarity of Qualitative Data

The power of the vivid story is often forgotten in the presentation of quantitative data. 

These data need to be contextualized so that stakeholders and decision makers can relate, 

hold onto the ideas presented, and thus act upon the information (Heath & Heath, 2007). 

A story or narrative can often give life and meaning to the numbers presented in the tables 

and graphs (Lavinghouze, Price & Smith, 2007).

Patton (2002) described three inquiry elements that facilitate the credibility of qualitative 

inquiry: (1) rigorous methods, (2) credibility of the researcher, and (3) philosophical belief in 

the value of qualitative inquiry. Qualitative data quickly 

become unclear through an overabundance of words. 

For example, distractions in qualitative data occur when 

quotes are used that do not show the link between data 

and conclusions or are not related to the main message. 

Writers often get carried away when presenting 

qualitative data and stray from the core message. In the 

evaluation report, authors must tell the audience exactly 

what the interpretation is and what actions should 

follow so that readers do not get lost or make erroneous 

interpretations. The data must tell a vivid story from 

authoritative and credible sources in an organized manner so that the audience can draw, 

in parallel with the evaluator, conclusions that are grounded in the data (Miles & Huberman, 

1998).

Evaluators who use mostly or only qualitative data may find that reporting in the outline 

presented in this workbook is cumbersome or does not fit the flow of the data. An 

alternative outline for a qualitative report is presented in Part II, Section 5.2, Example 4.

Long stretches of text—typical with qualitative data—can be made more readable by 

including quotes in text boxes or creating lists from data points. Graphics and formatting 

Evaluators who use mostly or 

only qualitative data may find that 

reporting in the outline presented 

in this workbook is cumbersome 

or does not fit the flow of the 

data. An alternative outline for a 

qualitative report is presented in 

Part II, Section 5.2, Example 4.
1 2 3 4 5 6

26 Developing an Effective Evaluation Report

techniques often can enhance the readability and thus the understanding of qualitative 

data. Such techniques include heading and subheading structure to guide the reader 

through sections of the data; thematic chapters for particularly long reports (for examples, 

see Part II, Section 5.2, Example 4); illustrations and photographs to break up long sections 

of text; and repetition of diagrams or models when discussed for more than two pages. 

Regarding diagrams or models, one large icon can be used to introduce the diagram or 

model with smaller ones repeated on subsequent pages to guide the readers and remind 

them of what section of the model or diagram is currently being discussed.

For the report to be useful and used, it has to resonate with the audience. This may entail 

various communication and reporting methods, which will be discussed in more detail in 

Step 6. 

Clarity of methods and data in a report is key to enabling the audience to understand the 

information presented and thus act upon the evaluation results. Time should be allowed 

for careful crafting of presentation techniques, as well as for review and feedback from the 

ESW on clarity and usefulness. It is beyond the scope of this workbook to fully discuss all 

the aspects of making data clear to the intended audience. If you are interested in learning 

about how to make data clear, additional resources are included in Part II of this workbook.

AT THIS POINT IN YOUR REPORT, YOU HAVE—

 defined the purposes of the evaluation,

 described the evaluation stakeholder workgroup,

 described the program including context,

 created a shared understanding of the program,

 described the stage of development of the program,

 discussed the focus of the evaluation through the lens of the logic 

model or program description and stage of development, 

 discussed issues related to credibility of data sources,

 discussed indicators and/or performance measures linked to evaluation 

questions,

 developed an evaluation methods grid, and 

 worked through clarity of presentation issues.
1 2 3 4 5 6

27

Step 5: Justify Conclusions 

Justification of conclusions includes analyzing the data collected, as well as interpreting 

and drawing conclusions from the data. This step is needed to turn the data collected 

into meaningful, useful, and accessible information. Engage the ESW in this step to 

assure the meaningfulness, credibility, and acceptance of evaluation conclusions and 

recommendations. Meet with stakeholders and discuss preliminary findings to help guide 

the interpretation phase. Stakeholders often have novel insights or perspectives to guide 

interpretation that the evaluation staff may not have, leading to more thoughtful and 

meaningful conclusions. 

Planning for analysis is directly tied to the timetable developed in the evaluation plan (CDC, 

2011). Errors or omissions during planning can cause serious delays in the final evaluation 

report and may result in missed opportunities if the report has been timed to correspond 

with significant events. Some program efforts are focused on collecting data without full 

appreciation of the time, resources, and expertise it takes to prepare the data for analysis; 

such programs are suffering from D.R.I.P.—Data Rich but Information Poor. Survey data 

may remain in boxes, or interviews may not be fully explored for theme identification. If 

insufficient time is allowed to properly understand and interpret the data, the credibility of 

the evaluation and information obtained will suffer. Therefore, the use of the results will be 

limited at best.

After the data analysis is completed, the next step is to interpret data and examine results 

to determine what the data actually say about your program. These results should be 

interpreted with the goals of your program, the social and political context of the program, 

and the needs of the stakeholders in mind. Data by themselves often are of little use to 

stakeholders and decision makers. To ensure that the evaluation can and will be used for 

program improvement and decision making, interpretation of the data needs to be included 

in the report, along with recommendations for next steps for the program and/or evaluation. 

The meaning of and uses for the data need to be clearly and explicitly stated in the report. 

Use comes from the interpretation or act of explaining the data; it applies understanding to 

the evaluation results. Otherwise, the evaluation information remains purely in the academic 

and theoretical realm. The final evaluation report is one tool for bridging the gap between 

data and real-world application or translation into practice. 

The emphasis is to justify conclusions and provide meaning, not just analyze the data; 

therefore, this step deserves due diligence. A note of caution: In a stakeholder-driven 

process, there is often pressure to reach beyond the evidence when drawing conclusions. 

The evaluator and the ESW are responsible for making sure that conclusions are grounded 
1 2 3 4 5 6

28 Developing an Effective Evaluation Report

in the data. This topic should be discussed with the ESW in the planning stages, along with 

reliability and validity issues and possible sources of biases. If possible and appropriate, 

consider triangulation of data and remedies to address potential threats to the credibility of 

the data as early as possible. The final report should include a discussion of the limitations 

of the evaluation.

FINDING YOUR ARGUMENT

Your target audience will be persuaded to accept conclusions and recommendations if 

the arguments presented are grounded in the data. This should be the crux of the final 

evaluation report, and is what separates this report from progress reports. This is where 

evaluators answer the “so what” question, or why the audience should care about the 

program or information presented in the report. Meaningful, grounded arguments, supported 

by vivid detail, will facilitate answering the “so what” question and creating a desire to 

care in the audience. Charmaz (2006) presents questions to facilitate finding the strongest 

argument to persuade the audience to care and respond to the evaluation:

 What sense of the process or analysis do you want your audience to make

Why is it significant? Make it clear and explicit. Don’t assume the audience knows. 

Combine showing and telling to direct the audience to discovery of the argument.

What did you tell your audience that you intended to do? What were your evaluation 

questions and why?

In which sentences or paragraphs do your major points coalesce? This is where you 

will find your argument.

(Charmaz, 2006, p. 157)

A Stakeholder Interpretation Meeting exercise is found in Part II, Section 3.1.
1 2 3 4 5 6

29

Use Tools for Reporting With Clarity

When describing the conclusions, you should include the processes used during analysis 

and interpretation meetings to promote transparency and credibility of findings. The 

interpretation should be clear, concise, and actionable for the information to be used. Make 

liberal use of bullet points, text boxes, and lists of key ideas to facilitate readability and 

understanding. In addition, it is often useful to include a pull-out, one-page document that 

highlights key findings and action items and can be used for quick review and reflection. 

For those in your audience who love acronyms, a list of acronym definitions at the 

beginning of the report will be appreciated.

AT THIS POINT IN YOUR REPORT, YOU HAVE—

 defined the purposes of the evaluation,

 described the evaluation stakeholder workgroup,

 described the program including context,

 created a shared understanding of the program,

 described the stage of development of the program,

 discussed the focus of the evaluation through the lens of the logic 

model or program description and stage of development,

 discussed issues related to credibility of data sources,

 discussed indicators and/or performance measures linked to evaluation 

questions,

 developed an evaluation methods grid,

 worked through clarity of presentation issues,

 described analysis and interpretation processes,

 included interpretation discussion and action steps, and

 developed clarity tools such as one-pagers and acronym lists.
1 2 3 4 5 6

30 Developing an Effective Evaluation Report

Step 6: Ensure Use and Share Lessons Learned

Ensuring use of evaluation results, sharing of lessons learned, communicating, and 

disseminating results begins with the planning phase and the development of the 

evaluation plan (CDC, 2011). It is often thought that this step will just take care of itself once 

the report is published; however, evaluation use is likely when it is planned for and built 

into the six steps in the evaluation plan. Planning for use is directly tied to the identified 

purposes of the evaluation and program and stakeholder

priorities. The decision to include the ESW throughout 

the plan development begins the process of building 

a market for the evaluation results and increases 

the likelihood that results will be used for program 

improvement and decision making. Use of evaluation 

is most likely to occur when evaluation is collaborative 

and participatory. This step is directly tied to the utility standard in evaluation. Is it ethical to 

consume program and stakeholder resources on evaluations if the results are never used? 

The resources expended and the information gained from an evaluation are too important 

to just hope that evaluation results will be used. Use must be planned for, cultivated, and 

included in the evaluation plan from the very beginning.

The uses for the evaluation will be determined by who needs to learn about the findings, 

along with how and when they should learn the information. Typically, this occurs when 

the final report is published. Most evaluators assume they are done at this point; however, 

taking personal ownership of evaluation results here, such as through collaboration with 

an ESW, will increase the impact and value of the evaluation results (Patton, 2008). The 

program staff and the ESW are responsible for getting the results to the right people, 

at the right time, and in a usable and targeted format. It is important to consider your 

audience in terms of timing, style, tone, message source, method, and format. Remember 

that stakeholders will not suddenly become interested in your product just because you 

produced a report; you must sufficiently prepare the market for the product and for use of 

the evaluation results (Patton, 2008). A clearly written and comprehensive evaluation report 

can help ensure use. An executive summary can also be a useful tool in summarizing the 

evaluation and results for audiences that need a quick overview.

Use must be planned for,

cultiv cultivated, ated, and included in the 

evaluation plan from the very 

beginning.
1 2 3 4 5 6

31

Plan for Communication and Dissemination

The evaluation results may not reach the intended audience with the intended impact just 

because they are published. An intentional communication and dissemination approach 

should be included in the evaluation plan and report. As previously stated, the planning 

stage is when the program staff and the ESW should begin to think about the best way 

to share the lessons learned from the evaluation. The communication and dissemination 

phase of the evaluation is a two-way process designed to support use of the evaluation 

results for program improvement and decision making. To achieve this outcome, 

evaluation results must be translated into practical applications and the information must 

be systematically distributed through a variety of audience-specific strategies. Effective 

dissemination systems need to do the following:

 Orient information toward the needs of the users, 

incorporating the types and levels of information 

needed into the forms and language they prefer.

Incorporate varied dissemination methods, 

including written information, electronic media, 

and person-to-person contact.

Include both proactive and reactive 

dissemination channels—that is, include 

information that users have identified as 

important as well as information that users may not know to request but are likely to 

need.

Establish clear channels for users to make their needs and priorities known to the 

disseminating agency.

Recognize and provide for the natural flow of the four levels of dissemination that 

lead to use: Spread, exchange, choice, and implementation.

Draw upon existing resources, relationships, and networks to the maximum extent 

possible while building new resources as needed by users.

Include effective quality control mechanisms to assure that information is accurate, 

relevant, and representative.













Include both proactive and 

reactive information—that is, 

include information that users 

have identified as important, and 

include information that users 

may not know to request but are 

likely to need.

(NIDRR, 2001, p. 3)
1 2 3 4 5 6

32 Developing an Effective Evaluation Report

 Include sufficient information so that users can determine the basic principles 

underlying specific practices and the settings in which these practices may be used 

most productively.

 Establish linkages to resources that may be needed to implement the information 

(usually referred to as technical assistance).

(NIDRR, 2001, p. 3)

The first step in writing an effective communication plan is to define your communication 

goals and objectives. Given that the communication objectives will be tailored to each 

target audience, you and your ESW need to consider who the primary audience(s) are (e.g., 

the ESW, the funding agency, the general public, or some other group). Some questions to 

ask about the potential audience(s) are:

 Who is a priority and why are they a priority?

 What do they already know about the topic? 

 What is crucial for them to know?

 Where do they prefer to receive their information? 

 What is their preferred format? 

 What language level is appropriate?

 Within what time frame are evaluation updates and reports necessary? 

Once you establish the goals, objectives, and target audiences in the communication 

plan, you should consider the best way to reach the intended audience; that is, which 

communication or dissemination tools will best serve your goals and objectives. Will the 

program use newsletters and fact sheets, oral presentations, visual displays, videos, 

storytelling, and/or press releases? Carefully consider the best tools to use by getting 

feedback from your ESW, by learning from others’ experiences, and by reaching out to 

target audiences to gather their preferences. Evaluation Strategies for Communicating and 

Reporting (Torres et al., 2004) is an excellent resource on creative techniques for reporting 

evaluation.

Complete the communication planning step by establishing a timetable for sharing 

evaluation findings and lessons learned. It is not enough to write and publish an evaluation 

report; you need to communicate the information so that stakeholders can use the 

information. The following table (Figure 5) can be helpful when charting your written 

communications plan.
1 2 3 4 5 6

33

Figure 5: Communication Plan Table

Target Audience Goals Tools Timetable

Program implementation 

team

Inform them in real-time 

about what is working 

well and what needs 

to be adjusted quickly 

during implementation

Monthly meetings and 

briefing documents Monthly

Program stakeholders Promote program 

progress

Success stories Annually

Funding decision makers Continue and/or enhance 

program funding

Executive summary; 

targeted program briefs

Within 90 days of 

conclusion of funding

Funders and decision 

makers; agency leads

Continue and/or enhance 

program funding Final evaluation report Within 180 days of conclusion of funding

You do not have to wait until the final evaluation report is written to share your evaluation 

results. Your evaluation plan should include a system for sharing interim results to facilitate 

program course corrections and decision making. For example, a success story can show 

movement in your program’s progress over time and demonstrate its value and impact. 

Success stories that focus on upstream, midstream, and downstream successes can 

facilitate program growth and visibility. (See Figure 6 for specific examples related to 

evaluating a media campaign.) Success stories also can serve as vehicles for engaging 

potential participants, partners, and funders, especially as a program takes time to mature 

and achieve long-term outcomes (Lavinghouze et al., 2007).
1 2 3 4 5 6

34 Developing an Effective Evaluation Report

Figure 6: Examples of Upstream, Midstream, and Downstream Successes With a Media 

Campaign

Other Communication and Reporting Efforts

The final evaluation report is one tool in a program’s 

evaluation tool box. While the final report is often required 

by funders, there are numerous methods, modes, and 

mechanisms for communicating and reporting evaluation 

results. Stakeholders and decision makers rarely read 

lengthy final evaluation reports. An executive summary 

that highlights the main points you want this key audience 

to know can be useful to include. It is best to layer your 

communication and reporting methods. For example, 

evaluation staff and stakeholders might make use of e-mails, 

newsletters, and upstream success stories to convey early 

and interim evaluation results. Then, evaluation staff may 

make use of several interpretation meetings to include 

stakeholders in the analysis process and also provide 

information on preliminary and final results. This might 

be followed by presentations (such as oral presentations, 

tailored fact sheets, final one-page success stories, and 

publication of an executive summary to communicate final 

evaluation results) tailored to the stakeholders you are trying 

to reach. And finally, the evaluation staff may publish a Web 

summary as well as post the full, final evaluation report on 

the program’s Web site. This strategy might also include 

A note on 

presentation: Do 

not fall for the siren’s 

song of presentation 

information overload. 

Remember the 

pointers on clarity 

of presentation of 

data provided in 

Step 5 and use these 

tips when creating 

presentation slides. 

A useful resource for 

creating clear, concise 

presentations is Cliff 

Atkinson’s (2007) book 

Beyond Bullet Points: 

Using Microsoft Office 

PowerPoint 2007 to 

Create Presentations 

That Inform, Motivate, 

and Inspire. 
1 2 3 4 5 6

35

a plan for members of the ESW to further communicate evaluation results using tailored 

summaries and success stories. For additional reach and sharing of lessons learned, 

results and conclusions can be published in peer-reviewed journals. 

Ensure Use of Information

The evaluation team and the program staff need to proactively take action to encourage 

use and wide dissemination of the information gleaned through the evaluation project. To 

leverage communication and dissemination plans, evaluators and staff members need to 

strategize with stakeholders early in the evaluation process about how to make sure that 

findings are used to support program improvement efforts and inform decision making. 

Program staff and the ESW must take personal responsibility for ensuring the dissemination 

and application of evaluation results.

The Communicating Results exercise in Part II, Section 4.1 can assist you with 

tracking your audiences and ways to reach them. More information on developing a 

communication and dissemination plan can be found in the Resources section in Part II.

You can include several practical actions in your communication and reporting plan to help 

make sure evaluation findings are used. These might include plans to—

 conduct regularly scheduled meetings with evaluation stakeholders as a forum 

for sharing evaluation findings in real time and developing recommendations for 

program improvement based on evaluation findings; 

 review evaluation findings and recommendations in regularly scheduled staff 

meetings;

 engage stakeholders in identifying ways they can apply evaluation findings to 

improve the program; 

 coordinate, document, and monitor efforts of program staff and partners to 

implement improvement recommendations; and 

 develop multiple, tailored evaluation results delivery mechanisms to address 

specific stakeholders’ information needs.
1 2 3 4 5 6

36 Developing an Effective Evaluation Report

Use Tools for Clarity in Reporting

To make the information visually appealing and easy to read, consider using graphic design 

best practices or the assistance of a graphic design expert when formatting your evaluation 

report. Following are some basic tips from Stephanie Evergreen (2011) to get you thinking 

about graphic design best practices that you can apply to your evaluation report. 

 The type of font you use affects the readability of your evaluation report. To 

enhance readability in a printed report, consider using a serif font (such as 

Garamond, Palatino, or Cambria).

 Consider how you will share your report. If it will be opened in multiple computers 

in a format other than PDF, there is a chance the font you selected will be changed 

and result in reformatting of your entire report. To make sure this doesn’t happen, 

consider using one of the five fonts listed that are installed on almost all computers 

(i.e., Verdana, Trebuchet, Arial, Georgia, and Times New Roman).

 If using a special font, make sure you embed the font in your document when you 

send it to another person who may or may not have that same font loaded on 

their computer. Turning the document into a PDF file does not always ensure your 

document will open with the same font and layout. 

 Consider using emotional graphics to draw readers to your key points and increase 

the chance they will remember what they read later on.

 If there is a possibility that others will be printing your report in black and white, 

make sure that whatever color scheme you chose will also print well in black and 

white.

 If you are using a color to emphasize a point, it is often helpful to use dark gray for 

the rest of the text instead of black because black has the most contrast against a 

white background and can distract from your emphasis point when printed in black 

and white.

Prepare an Executive Summary

The executive summary is another tool that can be used for quick review and reflection by 

stakeholders and decision makers. It can be considered a mini final report, and it may be 

the only section of the report that some people read. Therefore, after reading this section, 

a person should have a clear understanding of what your program did, how it was done, 

and the future direction of the program without reading the entire report. Use this section to 
1 2 3 4 5 6

37

provide an overview of the program, the evaluation questions, the methodology used in the 

evaluation, and highlights of key findings and recommendations. The executive summary 

should be brief, no more than about 10% of the total final evaluation report. In an ideal 

world, the executive summary would be one to three pages long.

More information on making your evaluation report visually appealing can be found in 

the Resources section in Part II.

Include References and Appendices

The reference section should acknowledge the sources that were used during writing the 

report. Any references made in the body of the report relevant to data, research, or theories 

other than the evaluation being described should be cited. References can help to justify 

and lend further support for the conclusions, especially when similar conclusions are found 

in other research including peer-reviewed work. References also contextualize findings 

within the existing body of literature on a given topic. 

An appendix is a great place to include a full-size program logic model or a model 

developed in the evaluation. An appendix is also a great place to include interim and 

final one-page success stories that can provide additional meaning and insight into 

the evaluation findings and promote the program. Appendices, including supporting 

documents such as success stories, can help to justify interpretations and judgments and 

can strengthen recommendations.

One Last Note

The impact of the evaluation results can reach far beyond the evaluation report. If 

stakeholders are involved throughout the process, communication and participation may be 

enhanced. If an effective feedback loop is in place, program improvement and outcomes 

may be enhanced. Use of evaluation results and their impact beyond the formal findings 

of the evaluation report start with the planning process and a transparent evaluation plan 

(CDC, 2011). If the commitment is strong to share lessons learned and success stories, 

then other programs may benefit from the information gleaned through the evaluation 

process. Changes in thinking, understanding, program, and organization may stem from 

thoughtful evaluative processes and the final evaluation report (Patton, 2008). 
1 2 3 4 5 6

38 Developing an Effective Evaluation Report

AT THIS POINT IN YOUR REPORT, YOU HAVE—

 defined the purposes of the evaluation,

 described the evaluation stakeholder workgroup,

 described the program including context,

 created a shared understanding of the program,

 described the stage of development of the program,

 discussed the focus of the evaluation through the lens of the logic 

model or program description and stage of development,

 discussed issues related to credibility of data sources,

 discussed indicators and/or performance measures linked to evaluation 

questions,

 developed an evaluation methods grid,

 worked through clarity of presentation issues,

 described analysis and interpretation processes,

 included interpretation discussion and action steps,

 developed clarity tools such as one-pagers and acronym lists,

 developed an intentional, strategic communications and dissemination 

plan, and 

 planned for various audience-specific evaluation reports, presentations 

and publications.
39

PULLING IT ALL TOGETHER

Thus far, we have described the components of an evaluation report and details you 

should consider while developing the final evaluation report within the context of the CDC 

Framework for Program Evaluation in Public Health. This section recaps the information.

A final evaluation report is one tool in your evaluation tool box for communicating and 

reporting evaluation results. As previously discussed, an evaluation report is a written 

document that describes how you monitored and evaluated your program and answers 

the “What,” the “How,” and the “Why It Matters” for your program. The “What” reflects the 

description of your program and the program’s accomplishments; it serves to clarify the 

program’s purpose and outcomes. The “How” answers the question, “How did you do it?” 

by describing how a program was implemented and assessing whether it operated with 

fidelity to the program protocol. The “How” also addresses program course corrections 

that should have been made during implementation. The “Why It Matters” represents 

how the program has made a difference and its impact on the public health issue being 

addressed. The ability to demonstrate that the program has made a difference can be 

crucial to program sustainability. The final evaluation report can facilitate the link between 

evaluation and program planning.

An Evaluation Report Checklist tool can be found in Part II, Section 5.1 and can 

provide discussion points for the report writing process.

The basic elements of a final evaluation report might include the following:

 Title page

 Executive summary

 Intended use and users

 Program description

 Evaluation focus

 Data sources and methods

 Results, conclusions, and interpretation 

 Use, dissemination, and sharing plan

 Tools for clarity

However, your report should be adapted to your specific evaluation needs and context. 
40 Developing an Effective Evaluation Report

Title page: The title page presents the program name, dates covered, and possibly the 

basic focus of the evaluation in an easily identifiable format.

Executive summary: This brief summary of the evaluation includes a program description, 

evaluation questions, design description, and key findings and action steps.

Intended use and users: In this section, the primary intended users and the ESW are 

identified and the purposes and intended uses of the evaluation are described. This section 

fosters transparency about the purposes of the evaluation and who will have access to 

evaluation results and when. It is important to build a market for evaluation results from the 

beginning. 

Program description: This section will usually include a logic model, a description of the 

program’s stage of development, and a narrative description. This section leads to a shared 

understanding of the program, as well as the basis for the evaluation questions and how 

they are prioritized. 

Evaluation focus: This section focuses the evaluation by identifying and prioritizing 

evaluation questions on the basis of the logic model and program description, the 

program’s stage of development, program and stakeholder priorities, intended uses of the 

evaluation, and feasibility. 

Data sources and methods: This section addresses indicators and performance 

measures, data sources and rationale for selection of methods, and credibility of data 

sources. Data need to be presented in a clear, concise manner to enhance readability and 

understanding.

Results, conclusions, and interpretation: This section describes the analysis processes 

and conclusions and presents meaningful interpretation of results. This is a step that 

deserves due diligence in the writing process. The propriety standard plays a role in guiding 

the evaluator’s decisions in how to analyze and interpret data to assure that all stakeholder 

values are respected in the process of drawing conclusions. The interpretation should 

include action steps or recommendations for next steps in either (or both) the program 

development and evaluation process.

Use, dissemination, and sharing plan: This is an important but often neglected section 

of the evaluation plan and the evaluation report. Plans for use of evaluation results, 

communication, and dissemination methods should be discussed from the beginning. The 

most effective plans include layering of communication and reporting efforts so that tailored 

and timely communication takes place throughout the evaluation.
41

Tools for clarity: Other tools that can facilitate clarity in your report include a table of 

contents; lists of tables, charts, and figures; references and possibly resources; and an 

acronym list. Appendices are useful for full-size program logic models, models developed 

through the evaluation, historical background and context information, and success stories.

The exercises, worksheets, and tools found in Part II of this workbook are designed to help 

you think through the concepts discussed in Part I. These are only examples; remember, 

your evaluation report will vary on the basis of your program, stakeholder priorities, and 

context.
42 Developing an Effective Evaluation Report

REFERENCES

Atkinson, C. (2007). Beyond bullet points: Using Microsoft Office PowerPoint 2007 to create 

presentations that inform, motivate, and Inspire. Redmond, WA: Microsoft Press.

CDC. See Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2011). Developing an effective evaluation plan.

Atlanta, GA: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control 

and Prevention, National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, 

Office on Smoking and Health and Division of Nutrition, Physical Activity, and Obesity. 

Retrieved March 18, 2013, from http://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/tobacco_control_programs/

surveillance_evaluation/evaluation_plan/index.htm

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2010). Comprehensive cancer control 

branch program evaluation toolkit. Atlanta, GA: U.S. Department of Health and Human 

Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Chronic Disease 

Prevention and Health Promotion, Division of Cancer Prevention and Control. Retrieved 

March 26, 2011, from http://www.cdc.gov/cancer/ncccp/pdf/CCC_Program_Evaluation_

Toolkit.pdf http://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/stateandcommunity/best_practices/pdfs/2007/

BestPractices_Complete.pdf

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2008a). Evaluation toolkit for smoke-free 

policies. Atlanta, GA: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for 

Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and 

Health Promotion, Office on Smoking and Health. Retrieved March 18, 2013, from, http://

www.cdc.gov/tobacco/basic_information/secondhand_smoke/evaluation_toolkit/pdfs/

evaluation_toolkit.pdf

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2008b). Introduction to process evaluation 

in tobacco use prevention and control. Atlanta, GA: U.S. Department of Health and 

Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Chronic 

Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, Office on Smoking and Health. Retrieved March 

26, 2011, from http://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/tobacco_control_programs/surveillance_

evaluation/process_evaluation/pdfs/tobaccousemanual_updated04182008.pdf

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2007). Best practices for comprehensive 

tobacco control programs. Atlanta, GA: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Chronic Disease 
43

Prevention and Health Promotion, Office on Smoking and Health. Retrieved March 26, 

2011, from http://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/stateandcommunity/best_practices/pdfs/2007/

BestPractices_Complete.pdf

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (1999). Framework for program evaluation in 

public health. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, 48(RR-11),1–40.

Charmaz, K. (2006). Constructing grounded theory: A practical guide through qualitative 

analysis. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Evergreen, S. (2011). Evaluation report layout checklist. Atlanta, GA: Tobacco Technical 

Assistance Consortium. Retrieved March 26, 2011, from http://www.ttac.org/resources/

pdfs/022912_Reporting_Well_ERLC-handout.pdf

Few, S. (2004). Show me the numbers: Designing tables and graphs to enlighten. Oakland, 

CA: Analytics Press.

Heath, C., & Heath, D. (2007). Made to stick: Why some ideas survive and others die. New 

York, NY: Random House, Inc.

International Epidemiological Association. Porta, Miguel, ed. (2008). A dictionary of 

epidemiology (5th ed.). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

Knowlton, L. W., & Philips, C. C. (2009). The logic model guidebook: Better strategies for 

great results. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Lavinghouze, R., Price, A. W., & Smith, K-A. (2007). The program success story: A valuable 

tool for program evaluation. Health Promotion Practice, 8(4), 323–331.

Lavinghouze, S. R., & Snyder, K. (in press). Developing your evaluation plans: A critical 

component of public health program infrastructure. American Journal of Health Education. 

Miles, M. B., & Huberman, M. A. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded source 

book. (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. 

National Institute on Disability and Rehabilitation Research. (2001). Developing an effective 

dissemination plan. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education. Retrieved March 18, 

2013, from http://www.ncddr.org/du/products/dissplan.html.

NIDRR. See National Institute on Disability and Rehabilitation Research .
44 Developing an Effective Evaluation Report

Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation Methods. (3rd ed.). Thousand 

Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. 

Patton, M. Q. (2008). Utilization-focused evaluation (4th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage 

Publications. 

Sandars, J. R., & The Joint Committee on Standards for Educational Evaluation. (1994). The 

Program Evaluation Standards (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Torres, R., Preskill, H., & Piontek, M. E. (2005). Evaluation strategies for communicating and 

reporting (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Western Michigan University. (n.d.). Evaluation checklists. Kalamazoo, MI: The Evaluation 

Center. Retrieved March 26, 2011, from http://www.wmich.edu/evalctr/checklists/

checklist_topics/ 

Worthen, B. R., Sanders, J. R., & Fitzpatrick, J. L. (1997). Program evaluation: Alternative 

approaches and practical guidelines (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Addison, Wesley Logman. 
45

Part II: Exercise, Worksheets, and Tools

Part II: Exercise, Worksheets, and Tools ....................................................................45

Step 1: 1.1 Stakeholder Inclusion and Communication Plan Exercise.............................................. 46

Step 1: 1.2 Stakeholder Information Needs Exercise....................................................................... 47

Step 3: 2.1 Checklist for Assessing Your Evaluation Questions ........................................................ 49

Step 5: 3.1 Stakeholder Interpretation Meeting Exercise................................................................. 51

Step 6: 4.1 Communicating Results Exercise.................................................................................. 54

Outline: 5.1 Reporting Checklist Tool .............................................................................................. 61

Tools and Templates: Checklist for Ensuring Effective Evaluation Reports........................................ 61

Outline: 5.2 Evaluation Report Outline Examples............................................................................ 62

Logic Models: OSH and DNPAO Logic Model Examples ................................................................... 65

Preventing Initiation of Tobacco Use Among Young People............................................................. 65

Eliminating Nonsmokers’ Exposure to Secondhand Smoke............................................................ 66

Promoting Quitting Among Adults and Young People..................................................................... 67

State NPAO Program—Detailed Logic Model (FOA 805 & TA Manual)............................................ 68
1 2 3 4 5 6

46 Developing an Effective Evaluation Report

STEP 1: 1.1 STAKEHOLDER INCLUSION AND 

COMMUNICATION PLAN EXERCISE

At the beginning of the evaluation, it is important to explore stakeholder agendas and 

come to a shared understanding of roles and responsibilities as well as the purposes 

of the evaluation. Some stakeholders will be represented in the evaluation stakeholders 

workgroup (ESW), and some will not. It is important to include a clear communication plan 

to meaningfully engage all appropriate stakeholders and increase their participation, buy-in 

for the evaluation, and use of the final results.

List the appropriate role for each stakeholder and how and when you might engage him or 

her in the evaluation. Consider a stakeholder’s expertise, level of interest, and availability 

when developing the communication plan. If there are specific deadlines for information, 

such as a referendum or funding opportunity, it is important to note those as well. 

Additional columns could be added for comments. 

Evaluation 

Stakeholder Role Related to the Evaluation Mode of Communication

Timing of 

Communication

Coalition Stakeholder 

(a representative might be on the ESW) Progress update Quarterly

Community Stakeholder 

(a representative might be on the ESW)

Interim progress 

update through 

success stories 

Semiannual

A NOTE ON ROLES

Stakeholders need not be a member of the ESW to have a role related to the evaluation. 

Given a stakeholder’s specific expertise, interest, availability, or intended use of the 

evaluation results, he or she may be involved in part or all of the evaluation without being a 

member of the ESW. Roles might include the following:

 Developing the evaluation plan

 Giving feedback on the focus of the evaluation

 Needing information about specific evaluation activities or progress of the evaluation

 Facilitating implementation of specific aspects of the evaluation

 Participating in interpretation meetings

 Disseminating and promoting use of evaluation results
1 2 3 4 5 6

47

STEP 1: 1.2 STAKEHOLDER INFORMATION NEEDS 

EXERCISE

While focusing the evaluation occurs in Step 3, the groundwork begins with the 

identification of stakeholders or the primary intended users of the evaluation. The ESW 

membership is designed to reflect the priority information needs of those who will use the 

evaluation information. However, it is not always possible to include representation from 

every group that would benefit from evaluation results. This should not prevent evaluators 

and the ESW from considering all points of view and information needs when considering 

how best to focus the evaluation. Therefore, determining stakeholder information needs is 

both useful for considering membership in the ESW (Step 1) and focusing the evaluation 

(Step 3).

From your list of primary intended users (those who have a stake in the evaluation results), 

identify what information each stakeholder needs.

Primary Intended User (Stakeholder) Evaluation Information Needed

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

Exercises 1.1 and 1.2 are not intended to provide the full picture of how to include 

stakeholders in the implementation of your evaluation or evaluation plan. Please see 

the following resource for more information: Developing an Effective Evaluation Plan 

(CDC, 2011), available at http://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/tobacco_control_programs/

surveillance_evaluation/evaluation_plan/index.htm

In addition, the Resources section of this workbook refers to documents that provide 

information on including stakeholders.
1 2 3 4 5 6

48 Developing an Effective Evaluation Report

Primary Intended User (Stakeholder) Evaluation Information Needed

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

8.

9.

10.

11.

12.

13.

14.

15.

16.

17.

18.
1 2 3 4 5 6

49

STEP 3: 2.1 CHECKLIST FOR ASSESSING YOUR 

EVALUATION QUESTIONS

The success of an evaluation lies in appropriately focusing the overarching evaluation 

questions. Once you have drafted a set of potential evaluation questions, apply the criteria 

below to each question. Review the questions to help you identify the ones that are most 

likely to provide useful information. Although no set of criteria can be universally applicable, 

this checklist should be helpful regardless of the purpose of your evaluation. 

Does the evaluation question meet this criterion? YES NO Does not meet criterion but 

merits inclusion because ... 

Q1

1. Stakeholder engagement 

A. Diverse stakeholders, including those who can act on 

evaluation findings and those who will be affected 

by such actions (e.g., clients, staff), were engaged in 

developing the question.

B. The stakeholders are committed to answering the 

question through an evaluation process and using 

the results.

2. Appropriate fit 

A. The question is congruent with the program’s theory 

of change.

B. The question can be explicitly linked to the 

program’s goals and objectives. 

C. The program’s values are reflected in the question.

D. The question is appropriate for the program’s stage 

of development.

3. Relevance 

A. The question clearly reflects the stated purpose of 

the evaluation.

B. Answering the question will provide information that 

will be useful to at least one stakeholder. 

C. Evaluation is the best way to answer this question, 

rather than some other (nonevaluative) process.
1 2 3 4 5 6

50 Developing an Effective Evaluation Report

Does the evaluation question meet this criterion? YES NO Does not meet criterion but 

merits inclusion because ... 

4. Feasibility

A. It is possible to obtain an answer to the question 

ethically and respectfully.

Unless an acceptable option can be 

found, eliminate this question.

B. Information to answer the question can be 

obtained with a level of accuracy acceptable to the 

stakeholders.

C. Sufficient resources, including staff, money, expertise, 

and time, can be allocated to answer the question.

D. The question will provide enough information to be 

worth the effort required to answer it.

E. The question can be answered in a timely manner 

(i.e., before any decisions potentially influenced by the 

information will be made). 

5. In sum ...

A. This question, in combination with the other questions 

proposed for this evaluation, provides a complete 

(enough) picture of the program.

B. The question, in ctombination with the other questions 

proposed for this evaluation, provides enough 

information for stakeholders to take action. 

Used with permission of the National Center for Environmental Health, Division of Environmental Hazards and 

Health Effects. For more information, contact Maureen Wilce at MWilce@cdc.gov.
1 2 3 4 5 6

51

STEP 5: 3.1 STAKEHOLDER INTERPRETATION MEETING 

EXERCISE

Justification of conclusions includes analyzing the information you collect, interpreting the 

meaning of the data, and drawing conclusions based on the data. This step is needed to 

turn the data collected into meaningful, useful, and accessible information. This often is 

the step in which program staff incorrectly assumes that the stakeholder workgroup is no 

longer needed and the work is better left to the experts. However, including your ESW in 

this step is directly tied to the previous discussion on credibility, acceptance of data and 

conclusions, and use. 

Moreover, your plans must include time for interpretation and review from stakeholders 

(including your critics) to increase the transparency and validity of your process and 

conclusions. The emphasis here is on justifying conclusions—not just analyzing data. This 

step deserves due diligence in the planning process. The propriety standard plays a role 

in guiding the evaluator’s decisions about how to analyze and interpret data to assure 

that all stakeholder values are respected in the process of drawing conclusions (Sandars 

& The Joint Committee on Standards for Educational Evaluation, 1994). This may include 

one or more stakeholder interpretation meetings to review interim data and further refine 

conclusions. A note of caution: As a stakeholder-driven process, there is often pressure 

to reach beyond the evidence when drawing conclusions. The evaluator and the ESW are 

responsible for making sure that conclusions are drawn directly from the evidence. 

Ideally, information on how you plan to solicit stakeholder input and facilitate interpretation 

of evaluation data will be included in your evaluation plan. If you have not done so in your 

evaluation plan, you should determine how you will do this while working on your evaluation 

report. An example follows.

Interpretation and Review Activities Timeline

Check-in with ESW and/or participants for memberchecking of data As appropriate during analysis phase

Awardee interpretation meeting Immediately following preparation of preliminary 

results

Stakeholder interpretation meeting Within 3 months following the awardee interpretation 

meeting

Stakeholder review of draft final report Within 3 months following the stakeholder 

interpretation meeting

Approval and review process of final report Within 2 months following stakeholder review of 

draft final report
1 2 3 4 5 6

52 Developing an Effective Evaluation Report

Complete an outline of proposed activities appropriate to your evaluation project to include 

opportunities for stakeholder interpretation and feedback.

Interpretation and Review Activities Timeline

You should consider the time it takes to solicit and incorporate stakeholder feedback in 

your evaluation project timeline. At this time, you should revisit your budget and timeline 

created during your evaluation plan to ensure adequate time and funding to include 

stakeholders in the process.

To make sure your stakeholder interpretation meeting is a success, plan activities to help 

things run smoothly. Time for these activities needs to be included in your evaluation 

timeline.











Send an initial invitation so that stakeholders can plan for the meeting. Remind them 

of the overall evaluation purpose and questions.

Send the preliminary report or PowerPoint presentation within 2 weeks of the initial 

invitation to allow time to review. Remind stakeholders that results are draft and 

should not be shared outside of the review group.

Send reminders about the meeting 1 or 2 weeks before the date. Identify any preexisting documentation that may be useful for understanding context.

Plan for appropriate technology (and backup) needed, such as recorders, laptop 

computer, screen, flip charts, and so forth.

If feasible, use a professional meeting facilitator.

A checklist for facilitating the development of a formal stakeholder interpretation meeting 

can be found at http://www.wmich.edu/evalctr/archive_checklists/feedbackworkshop.pdf.
1 2 3 4 5 6

53

Interpretation and Review Activities Timeline
1 2 3 4 5 6

54 Developing an Effective Evaluation Report

STEP 6: 4.1 COMMUNICATING RESULTS EXERCISE

Just because your evaluation results are published does not mean they will reach 

the intended audience with the intended impact. An intentional communication and 

dissemination plan should be included in your evaluation plan. As stated in the Developing 

an Effective Evaluation Plan workbook (http://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/tobacco_control_

programs/surveillance_evaluation/evaluation_plan/index.htm), the planning phase is the 

time to begin thinking about the best way to share the lessons you will learn from the 

evaluation. The communication (i.e., dissemination) phase of the evaluation is a two-way 

process designed to support use of the evaluation results for program improvement and 

decision making. To achieve that outcome, evaluation results must be translated into 

practical applications and the information or knowledge must be distributed systematically 

through a variety of audience-specific strategies. 

Communicating evaluation results involves sharing information in ways that make it 

understandable and useful to stakeholders. Successful communication is key to your 

evaluation results being used. You can communicate successfully by using a variety of 

formats and channels. A communication format is the actual layout of the communication 

you will use, such as reports, brochures, one-page descriptions, newsletters, 

executive summaries, slides, and fact sheets. A communication channel is the route of 

communication you will use, such as oral presentations, videos, e-mails, Webcasts, news 

releases, and telephone conferences. The formats and channels should take into account 

the needs of different audiences, the type of information you wish to provide, and the 

purpose of the communication. Consulting the ESW can provide some of this information.

When developing your communication or dissemination strategy, carefully consider the 

following questions:

 With which target audiences or groups of stakeholders will you share findings?

 What formats and channels will you use to share findings?

 When and how often do you plan to share findings (including interim and final 

evaluation findings)?

 Who is responsible for carrying out dissemination strategies?

You should develop a communication strategy while you are creating an effective 

evaluation plan. If you did not have a chance to develop a communication plan during 

your evaluation planning phase, this exercise is included to allow you to work on creating 

one for your evaluation report. You can use the following matrix to help you develop a 

communications plan for your evaluation findings.
1 2 3 4 5 6

55

Communication Plan Table

What do you want to 

communicate?

(Include both interim 

and final evaluation 

findings)

To whom do you want 

to communicate?

How do you want to communicate?

Format(s) Channel(s)

This tool was adapted from the Division of Adolescent and School Health’s communication matrix in Using 

Evaluation to Improve Programs: Strategic Planning in the strategic planning kit for school health programs, 

retrieved July 24, 2012, from http://www.cdc.gov/healthyyouth/evaluation/sp_toolkit.htm

The next tool can help you track communications with your various audiences, including 

the communication format (the layout of the communication, such as newsletters); the 

communication channel (the route of communication, such as oral presentations); audience 

feedback on the communication message; and the next steps you need to take in response 

to audience feedback.
1 2 3 4 5 6

56 Developing an Effective Evaluation Report

What do you want to 

communicate?

(Include both interim and 

final evaluation findings)

To whom do you want 

to communicate?

How do you want to communicate?

Format(s) Channel(s)
1 2 3 4 5 6

57

Communication Tracking Chart No. 1

Communication Date Audience(s) Communication

Format(s)

Communication

Channel(s)

Audience 

Feedback and 

Next Steps
1 2 3 4 5 6

58 Developing an Effective Evaluation Report

Communication Date Audience(s) Communication

Format(s)

Communication

Channel(s)

Audience 

Feedback and 

Next Steps
1 2 3 4 5 6

59

A second example illustrates what a communication tracking chart might look like.

Communication Tracking Chart No. 2

Target Audience Objectives for the 

Communication Tools Timetable

Following is an example of a completed chart:

Figure 5. Communication Tracking Chart

Target Audience 

(Priority) Goals Tools Timetable

Program implementation 

team

Inform them in real-time about 

what’s working well and what 

needs to be quickly adjusted 

during implementation

Monthly meetings 

and briefing 

documents

Monthly

Program stakeholders Promote program progress Success stories Annually

Funding decision makers Continue and/or enhance 

program funding

Executive summary; 

Targeted program 

briefs

Within 90 days of 

conclusion of funding

Funders and decision 

makers; agency leads

Continue and/or enhance 

program funding

Final evaluation 

report

Within 180 days of 

conclusion of funding
1 2 3 4 5 6

60 Developing an Effective Evaluation Report

Target Audience Objectives for the 

Communication Tools Timetable
61

OUTLINE: 5.1 REPORTING CHECKLIST TOOL

The following is a checklist of items related to reporting your evaluation results that may be 

worth discussing with your evaluation stakeholder workgroup.

Tools and Templates: Checklist for Ensuring Effective Evaluation 

Reports*

Provide interim and final reports to intended users in time for use.

Tailor the report content, format, and style for the audiences by involving audience

members.

Include an executive summary.

Summarize the description of the stakeholders and how they were engaged.

Describe essential features of the program (e.g., in appendices).

Explain the focus of the evaluation and its limitations.

Include an adequate summary of the evaluation plan and procedures.

Provide all necessary technical information (e.g., in appendices).

Specify the standards and criteria for evaluative judgments.

Explain the evaluative judgments and how they are supported by the evidence.

List strengths and weaknesses of the evaluation.

Discuss recommendations for action with their advantages, disadvantages, and 

resource implications.

Assure protections for program clients and other stakeholders.

Anticipate how people or organizations might be affected by the findings.

Present minority opinions or rejoinders where necessary.

Verify that the report is accurate and unbiased.

Organize the report logically and include appropriate details.

Remove technical jargon.

Use examples, illustrations, graphics, and stories.

*Adapted from Worthen, Sanders, and Fitzpatrick (1997) and presented in Comprehensive Cancer Control Branch 

Program Evaluation Toolkit (CDC, 2010). Also visit Western Michigan University (n.d.) for a free evaluation report 

checklist, available online at http://www.wmich.edu/evalctr/archive_checklists/feedbackworkshop.pdf
62 Developing an Effective Evaluation Report

OUTLINE: 5.2 EVALUATION REPORT OUTLINE EXAMPLES

Following are report outline examples to spur discussion and ideas for the development of 

a report that best fits your program’s context and stakeholder needs.

Example 1

I. Executive Summary

II. Program Description

a. Implementation Process

b. Program Goals and Objectives

III. Evaluation Design and Methodology

IV. Results

a. Data

b. Process Report

c. Outcomes Report

V. Interpretation of Process and Outcomes Reports

VI. Conclusions

VII. Recommendations

VIII. Appendices

Example 2

I. Executive Summary

II. Problem Statement

III. Evaluation Design

IV. Evaluation Methodology

V. Results

a. Quantitative 

b. Qualitative 

VI. Conclusions

VII. Recommendations

VIII. Appendices
63

Example 3

I. Executive Summary

II. Program Description

III. Project Objectives and Activity Plans

IV. Evaluation Plan and Methodology

V. Results

a. Process and Outcome 

b. Successes and Barriers

VI. Conclusions

VII. Recommendations

VIII. Appendices

Example 4* 

Executive Summary

I. Introduction

a. Program Overview

b. Evaluation Plan

c. Methods

II. Documentation Summary of Services Delivered

III. Survey Findings

IV. Case Study

a. City Intermediate School

i. Introduction

ii. The School Context

iii. Goals

iv. Services Delivered

v. Staff Developer Support at the School

vi. Implementation

vii. Accomplishments

viii. Problems Encountered by the Team, and Strategies Used to Cope With Them

ix. The Basic Skills Improvement Plan: Quality and Level of Implementation
64 Developing an Effective Evaluation Report

x. Classroom Implementation

xi. Impact and Capacity Building

xii. Integrative Summary

b. Roundtree Junior High School (parallel structure)

c. Union Prep High School (parallel structure)

d. Cross-Site Summary

V. Recommendations

*This report outline example was taken from Miles and Huberman (1994, p. 304) for an action-oriented 

evaluation study. The audiences were managers, funders, and operators of a program to help schools adopt 

better methods of reading and writing instruction. Stakeholders needed information that would help them decide 

about the program’s future. 
65

LOGIC MODELS: OSH AND DNPAO LOGIC MODEL 

EXAMPLES Preventing Initiation of Tobacco Use Among Young People Preventing Initiation of Tobacco Use Among Young People
66 Developing an Effective Evaluation Report Eliminating Nonsmokers’ Exposure to Secondhand Smoke Eliminating Nonsmokers’ Exposure to Secondhand Smoke
67

Promo Promoting Quitting Among Adults and Young People ting Quitting Among Adults and Young People
68 Developing an Effective Evaluation Report State NPAO Program—Detailed Logic Model (FOA 805 & TA Manual)
69

Resources*

*Resources are listed for the convenience of the user and do not constitute endorsement by the U.S. 

Government.

WEB RESOURCES

American Evaluation Association (AEA)

 http://www.eval.org

 The American Evaluation Association is an international professional association 

of evaluators devoted to the application and exploration of program evaluation, 

personnel evaluation, technology, and many other forms of evaluation. Evaluation 

involves assessing the strengths and weaknesses of programs, policies, personnel, 

products, and organizations to improve their effectiveness. The association has 

approximately 5,500 members representing all 50 states and more than 60 foreign 

countries. (Retrieved July 19, 2011 from AEA’s Web site, http://www.eval.org.)

CDC Division of Adolescent and School Health’s (DASH’s) program evaluation 

resources and tools

 http://www.cdc.gov/healthyyouth/evaluation/resources.htm

CDC Division of STD Prevention’s Practical Use of Program Evaluation among 

Sexually Transmitted Disease (STD) Programs

 http://www.cdc.gov/std/program/pupestd/Introduction-SPREADS.pdf

CDC Framework for Program Evaluation in Public Health

 http://www.cdc.gov/eval/framework.htm 

 Effective program evaluation is a systematic way to improve and account for 

public health actions that involves procedures that are useful, feasible, ethical, and 

accurate. The framework guides public health professionals in their use of program 

evaluation. It is a practical, nonprescriptive tool, designed to summarize and 

organize essential elements of program evaluation. The framework comprises steps 

in program evaluation practice and standards for effective evaluation. Adhering to 

the steps and standards of this framework will shape an understanding of each 

program’s context and will improve how program evaluations are conceived and 

conducted.
70 Developing an Effective Evaluation Report

CDC Introduction to Program Evaluation for Public Health Programs: A Self-Study 

Guide

 http://www.cdc.gov/eval/evalguide.pdf

Developing an Effective Evaluation Plan

 http://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/tobacco_control_programs/surveillance_evaluation/

evaluation_plan/index.htm

Disseminating Program Achievements and Evaluation Findings to Garner Support

 http://www.cdc.gov/healthyyouth/evaluation/pdf/brief9.pdf 

Impact and Value: Telling Your Program’s Story

 http://www.cdc.gov/oralhealth/publications/library/success_stories_wkbk.htm 

National Heart Disease and Stroke Prevention Program’s evaluation guides: Writing 

SMART Objectives and Developing and Using Logic Models

 http://www.cdc.gov/dhdsp/programs/nhdsp_program/evaluation_guides/smart_

objectives.htm

 http://www.cdc.gov/dhdsp/programs/nhdsp_program/evaluation_guides/logic_

model.htm

Pennsylvania State University Extension Program evaluation resources

 http://extension.psu.edu/evaluation/

The Evaluation Center

 http://www.wmich.edu/evalctr/archive_checklists/feedbackworkshop.pdf

 This site provides refereed checklists for designing, budgeting, contracting, staffing, 

managing, and assessing evaluations of programs, personnel, students, and 

other evaluands; collecting, analyzing, and reporting evaluation information; and 

determining merit, worth, and significance. Each checklist is a distillation of valuable 

lessons learned from practice.
71

University of Wisconsin Extension Program development and evaluation publications

 http://www.uwex.edu/ces/pdande/evaluation/evaldocs.html

 This site provides a range of publications for planning and implementing an 

evaluation and offers online evaluation curriculums and courses.

W.K. Kellogg Foundation logic model and evaluation guides

 http://www.wkkf.org/knowledge-center/resources/2006/02/WK-KelloggFoundation-Logic-Model-Development-Guide.aspx (Retrieved July 19, 2011.) 

 The foundation provides a guide to logic modeling to facilitate program planning 

and implementation activities.

MAKING YOUR IDEAS STICK: REPORTING AND PROGRAM 

PLANNING

 Atkinson, Cliff. (2007). Beyond bullet points: Using Microsoft Office PowerPoint 

2007 to create presentations that inform, motivate, and inspire. Redmond, WA: 

Microsoft Press.

 Becker, H. S. (2007). Writing for social scientists: How to start and finish your thesis, 

book, or article (2nd ed.). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

 Heath, C., & Heath, D. (2007). Made to stick: Why some ideas survive and others die. 

New York, NY: Random House.

 Heath, C., & Heath, D. (2010). Switch: How to change things when change is hard. 

New York, NY: Random House.

Impact and Value: Telling Your Program’s Story

 www.cdc.gov/oralhealth/publications/library/success_stories_wkbk.htm 

 Lavinghouze, R., Price, A. W., & Smith, K-A. (2007). The program success story: A 

valuable tool for program evaluation. Health Promotion Practice, 8(4), 323–331.

 Torres, R., Preskill, H., & Piontek, M. E. (2004). Evaluation strategies for 

communicating and reporting (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
72 Developing an Effective Evaluation Report























QUALITATIVE METHODS

Miles, M. B., & Huberman, M. A. (1994). Qualitative data analysis (2nd ed.). 

Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods (3rd ed.). 

Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Yin, R. K. (2008). Case study research: Design and methods (applied social research 

methods) (4th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Yin, R. K. (2010). Qualitative research from start to finish. New York, NY: The 

Guilford Press. 

QUANTITATIVE METHODS

Kleinbaum, D. G., & Klein, M. (2010). Logistic regression: A self-learning text 

(statistics for biology and health) (3rd ed.). New York, NY: Springer.

Rothman, K. J., Greenland, S., & Lash, T. L. (2008). Modern epidemiology (3rd ed.). 

Philadelphia, PA: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins.

Tufte, E. R. (1990). Envisioning information. Cheshire, CT: Graphics Press. 

Tufte, E. R. (2001). The visual display of quantitative information. Cheshire, CT: 

Graphics Press. 

PULLING IT ALL TOGETHER

Evaluation Report Layout Checklist that provides best practices for designing your 

evaluation report 

http://stephanieevergreen.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/ERLC.pdf

Color diagnostics Web site that gives ideas on combining colors in a visually 

appealing way for documents 

http://kuler.adobe.com/#themes/rating?time=30

Color-blindness software with information on what different color combinations look 

like to someone with color blindness

http://colororacle.cartography.ch/
73

EVALUATION USE

 Butterfoss, F. D. (2007). Coalitions and partnerships in community health. San 

Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

 Mattessich, P. W. (2003). The manager’s guide to program evaluation: Planning, 

contracting, and managing for useful results. St. Paul, MN: Amherst H. Wilder 

Foundation.

 Patton, M. Q. (2010). Developmental evaluation: Applying complexity concepts to 

enhance innovation and use. New York, NY: The Guilford Press. 

 Patton, M. Q. (2008). Utilization-focused evaluation (4th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: 

Sage Publications. 

OSH EVALUATION RESOURCES

Best Practices for Comprehensive Tobacco Control Programs—2007 

 http://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/stateandcommunity/best_practices/index.htm

 This document is an evidence-based guide to help states plan and establish 

effective tobacco control programs to prevent and reduce tobacco use.

Developing an Effective Evaluation Plan

 http://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/tobacco_control_programs/surveillance_evaluation/

evaluation_plan/index.htm

 This workbook was designed to help public health program managers, 

administrators, and evaluators develop an effective evaluation plan in the context of 

the planning process. 

Evaluation Toolkit for Smoke-Free Policies 

 http://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/basic_information/secondhand_smoke/evaluation_

toolkit/index.htm

 The evaluation approaches described in this toolkit and the findings of studies 

conducted using these approaches may also be useful to stakeholders who are 

interested in the effects of smoke-free laws, including business organizations (e.g., 

chambers of commerce, restaurant associations) and labor unions.
74 Developing an Effective Evaluation Report

Introduction to Process Evaluation in Tobacco Use Prevention and Control 

 www.cdc.gov/tobacco/tobacco_control_programs/surveillance_evaluation/process_

evaluation/index.htm

 This guide, published in 2008, will help state and federal program managers 

and evaluation staff design and implement valid, reliable process evaluations for 

tobacco use prevention and control programs.

Introduction to Program Evaluation for Comprehensive Tobacco Control Programs 

 http://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/tobacco_control_programs/surveillance_evaluation/

evaluation_manual/index.htm

 This how-to guide, published in 2001, for planning and implementing evaluation 

activities will help state tobacco control program managers and staff members plan, 

design, implement, and use practical and comprehensive evaluations of tobacco 

control efforts.

Key Outcome Indicators for Evaluating Comprehensive Tobacco Control Programs

 http://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/tobacco_control_programs/surveillance_evaluation/

key_outcome/index.htm

 This guide, published in 2005, provides information on 120 key outcome indicators 

for evaluation of statewide comprehensive tobacco prevention and control 

programs.

Question Inventory on Tobacco (QIT)

 http://apps.nccd.cdc.gov/qit/quickSearch.aspx

 This Web-based tool developed by OSH categorizes more than 6,000 tobaccorelated questions. This site can be used to collect information on survey questions 

used in the past, locate available data for secondary analyses, and gather ideas for 

future instrument development.

Quitlines: A Resource for Development, Implementation, and Evaluation

 http://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/quit_smoking/cessation/quitlines/index.htm

 This 2005 document is intended to help state health departments, health care 

organizations, and employers to contract for and monitor telephone-based tobacco 

cessation services. It is also intended to help states, health care organizations, 
75

and quitline operators enhance existing quitline services, and to inform those who 

are interested in learning more about population-based approaches to tobacco 

cessation.

Smoking-Attributable Mortality, Morbidity, and Economic Costs (SAMMEC)

 http://apps.nccd.cdc.gov/sammec/

 This online application allows you to estimate the health and health-related 

economic consequences of smoking to adults and infants.

State Tobacco Activities Tracking and Evaluation (STATE) system

 http://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/statesystem 

 The STATE system is an electronic data warehouse containing up-to-date and 

historical state-level data on tobacco use prevention and control.

Surveillance and Evaluation Data Resources for Comprehensive Tobacco Control 

Programs

 http://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/tobacco_control_programs/surveillance_evaluation/

surveillance_manual/index.htm

 This compilation of data sources for tobacco control programs, published in 

2001, is useful for tobacco control programs that are conducting surveillance or 

evaluation.

Surveillance and Evaluation Net-Conferences

 Archived presentations are available at http://www.ttac.org/resources/cdc_

netconferences.html

 The Surveillance and Evaluation Net-Conference series provides information on 

best and promising evaluation practices and describes the role of evaluation in 

tobacco control work. The Net-Conference series was originally designed for state 

surveillance and evaluation staff, but the material covers a variety of interesting 

and emerging topics in surveillance and evaluation that are valuable to other public 

health professionals. Each conference consists of a lecture followed by a questionand-answer session.
76 Developing an Effective Evaluation Report

Surveillance and Evaluation Web page on OSH’s Smoking and Tobacco Use Web site 

 http://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/tobacco_control_programs/surveillance_evaluation/

index.htm

Tobacco Control State Highlights 2012

 http://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/data_statistics/state_data/state_highlights/2012/index.

htm

Tobacco Control State Highlights 2012 guides states in developing and implementing 

high-impact strategies and assessing their performance. This report also provides 

state-specific data intended to—

 highlight how some states are making great strides in reducing smoking rates using 

evidence-based strategies while also showing that more work needs to be done in 

other states, and 

 enable readers to see how their own states perform. 

DNPAO EVALUATION RESOURCES

Developing an Effective Evaluation Plan

 http://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/tobacco_control_programs/surveillance_evaluation/

evaluation_plan/index.htm

 This workbook was designed to help public health program managers, 

administrators, and evaluators develop an effective evaluation plan in the context of 

the planning process.

Developing and Using an Evaluation Consultation Group

 http://www.cdc.gov/obesity/downloads/EvaluationConsultationGroup.pdf

 This document will help users clarify approaches to and methods of evaluation. It 

provides examples and tools specific to the scope and purpose of state nutrition, 

physical activity, and obesity programs and recommend resources for additional 

reading.

 The guidance describes an evaluation consultation group, how it can be structured 

and implemented, and how it contributes to better and more useful evaluation.
77

Evaluation of State Nutrition, Physical Activity, and Obesity Plans

 http://www.cdc.gov/obesity/downloads/EvaluationofStateNPAOPlans.pdf

 This document will help users clarify approaches to and methods of evaluation. It 

provides examples and tools specific to the scope and purpose of state nutrition, 

physical activity, and obesity programs and recommend resources for additional 

reading.

Evaluation Quick Start Resources

 http://www.cdc.gov/nccdphp/dnpa/physical/pdf/PA_evaluation_quick_start.pdf

 These resources will help users clarify approaches to and methods of evaluation. 

They provide examples and tools specific to the scope and purpose of state 

nutrition, physical activity, and obesity programs and recommend resources for 

additional reading.

Recommended Community Strategies and Measurements to Prevent Obesity in the 

United States

 http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/rr5807a1.htm

 The Common Community Measures for Obesity Prevention Project (the Measures 

Project) established a core set of data elements that can be used by communities 

for self-evaluation and potentially by program evaluators and researchers who study 

the food and physical activity environments. For each measure, a data collection 

protocol and potential data sources are identified.